NationStates Jolt Archive

The resolution is on the floor.

Child Protection Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly
Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex
Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,
and
Declares;
1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

2. For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a child, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child

b) It is illegal to relocate a child to another country for the purpose to cause sexual abuse to the child

c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal

d) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used by law enforcement agencies or for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities

e) Involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal, however, if it can be proven that it was an unknowing involvement, leniency may be afforded due to the discretion of the nation’s judicial system

f) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

3. A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated.

a) WA member states are urged to set up a system in which the public is notified of a kidnapped child

b) WA member states are urged to work together if a suspect and child are believed to have left the nation of the child’s residence

If there's anything I've left out, please let me know.A definition 'of child', and a justification for why this should be handled at the international, not national or sub-national, level.

A definition 'of child', and a justification for why this should be handled at the international, not national or sub-national, level.

I added both to the beginning. Not sure why they weren't in there to begin with.

We are very interested in this first draft, we commend its authors for their diligence in bringing it before this body with such alacrity.

Perhaps we might make a few suggestions, the first being that unfortunately this resolution will have to define what a child is for its own purposes. This could be done by defining a child as any citizen of a member nation who's age is bellow that nation's age of majority or consent which ever is higher or lower dependent how many the honoured delegacy wishes to protect with this resolution.
Of course the definition would have to stipulate that a child is defined as such by the laws of their home nation, where a child has been abducted to a foreign country for the purposes of exploitation.

The respected Ambassador will also have to define what "child sexual abuse" actually is for the purposes of this resolution it would be best in our opinion to make this definition encompass acts of child pornography without actually mentioning the word pornography in order that a seperate definition of pornography will not be necessary.

A possible wording could be; " Child sexual abuse is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned for the purposes of the enjoyment of others or real for the purposes of the enjoyment of the adult, between an adult and a person defined as a minor child by this resolution, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question. " or words to this effect.

Article 1 clause b) should include a reference to "Parents or Guardians" to protect orphans either in state care or in foster homes.

Article 2 clause b) should stipulate that such materials would be held and obtained under licence from the relevent authorities to prevent the possibility of spurious excuses being made that use or possession of these materials was for research when it was not.

Article 4 clause b) should not say "will offer up" as this allows too much interpretation of when this should occur, instead it could read " must extradite ", or " must make available", or "must offer up" .

So far these are our suggestions we hope the honoured Ambassador will excuse us if we profer more after further reflection.

Thank you, honorable ambassador. I have taken your suggestions and decided that they were important enough to add into the proposal. The edited version is now available for viewing.

DEFINES a child to be an individual under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nationWell, which is it? Our age of consent is 16, our age of majority is 18. I doubt we are unusual in having such an arrangement. Do you mean 'whichever is the lower'? Or 'whichever is the higher'? As it stands, your statement is ambiguous.

And I suggest using 'person' instead of individual.

And you are still missinga justification for why this should be handled at the international, not national or sub-national, level.
Not going to comment on 1-3 yet, but in 4 there needs to be consideration of a suspect for a crime in nation A fleeing to nation B where said offence is not a crime. For example, some nations prohibit CGI child porn. Some do not. If a manufacturer of such content fled to our nation, we would be unhappy about having to extradite her.

Well, which is it? Our age of consent is 16, our age of majority is 18. I doubt we are unusual in having such an arrangement. Do you mean 'whichever is the lower'? Or 'whichever is the higher'? As it stands, your statement is ambiguous.

And I suggest using 'person' instead of individual.

And you are still missing
Not going to comment on 1-3 yet, but in 4 there needs to be consideration of a suspect for a crime in nation A fleeing to nation B where said offence is not a crime. For example, some nations prohibit CGI child porn. Some do not. If a manufacturer of such content fled to our nation, we would be unhappy about having to extradite her.

I have altered the definition of child to be age of consent.

I'm not sure why the justification did not make it in, but it should be there now.

At the moment, I'm too tired to deal with the last comment. Do you have any suggestions about how it could be worded without throwing me over the character limit?

I set out a clearer definition of 'media' in Section 3 a).

I'm hoping this will cause less confusion on what exactly constitutes pornography.

I feel like the stupid kid in the corner being ignored. I'm just going to quote myself again. Will someone please respond? *ambassadorial cry*

It has occurred to this State the fact that it may be impossible for the WA to efficiently legislate against child pornography. We do not (for once...) stand against such a proposal due to ideological beliefs, but simply due to the practical requirements of such a proposal.

As opposed to the mythical so-called "RL," where the ancient books of lore state there supposedly was only one recognized sapient being, we live in a world of many cultures and, far more importantly, genetic variants. Whereas in that mystical land all beings matured at approximately the same rate, we live in a land where some beings mature quickly, others where puberty and mental development occurs far later in life, some beings which, even after reaching full maturity, maintain many drastically child-like features, which might make them similar to the infants of another Nation, who when mature have a far more "adult" look. This problem, standing alone, however, can be covered by allowing nations to name their own definition of "child" and age of maturity.

The problem is raised, however, by the global culture we all inhabit. If an inhabitant of Livelongia, where the age of maturity is 50 due to their life-span of 200, imports pornography from Diequickia, where the age of maturity is 2 due to their life-span of 10, can he be convicted of possession of child-pornography due the inclusion of 2-(Diequickian)-year-olds? Even if the physiological appearance and mental maturity of the "3-year-old children" is equal and comparable to that of a Livelongian 60-year-old?

And the proposal cannot entirely cover this by instating a simple conversion of age-of-maturity/life-expectancy equation (a 2-year-old Diequickian is the same as a 40-year-old Livelongian and is therefore considered child-pornography within Livelongia) due to the fact that, even with this equation in place, physiological differences can still create "pedophilic" situations:

An individual from Lookoldia imports pornography from Childia. Both nations have similar age of maturity (18) and life-expectancy (80), rendering the above equation moot. However, male citizens of Lookoldia develop hairy chests and females, expansive breasts, at the age of 7, while citizens of Childia have no record of facial hair or protruding breasts in their history, and the average height of an individual is 1,40 meters. While the pornography seen by the Lookoldian is legal in every way, he is observing sexual relations between individuals which, in his culture and (almost therefore) mindset, would most easily be considered minors.

As well, instating the equation would quite simply be a huge blow to the pornographic industry, since they would have to choose whether to employ "barely legal" individuals and therefore only be able to market their product in a small selection of Nations (including their own) or employ older and therefore, in the eyes of many clients, less attractive actors, increasing their market but quite possibly decreasing their profits.

As well, the proposal would have to cover such situations as:

A Livelongian makes child pornography (making him guilty of a crime) and exports it to Diequickia. The Diequickian who purchases the pornography can be charged with ownership of illegal materials, but can he be charged with ownership of child-pornography? By Diequickian standards, after all, that pornography is in fact perfectly legal (a 40-year-old Livelongian is considered a minor, but is the same as a 2-year-old Diequickian, which is considered legal).

I feel like the stupid kid in the corner being ignored. I'm just going to quote myself again. Will someone please respond? *ambassadorial cry*

It is the age of consent that matters for this. If a person is under the age of consent for their home nation, it becomes illegal. If it's exported, I honestly don't see where it would be illegal for the purposes of this resolution. I think that a nation can go above and beyond this resolution if they wish to prohibit images where someone looks like a child, but is not due to the laws of their home nation.

Most of what the respected Ambassador for Saquatchewain seems to be asking is whether an adult in one nation should be criminalised for viewing images of an adult from another nation where there are differing ages of maturity or actual physical differences in maturity between these nations.

The answer should be no. The adult of the first nation is perfectly intitled to obtain imagery of another adult from another nation engaging in sexual activity if they wish, why should this not be the case respected Ambassador?

Their last point is simply covered by the fact that the age of consent/maturity is defined by the person engaging in the acts home country, therefore yes the "Diequikian" is guilty of possessing child pornography since the person/s in the pornography are children in their country of origin.

yours e.t.c. ,

Article 4 should read " where those accused of child abuse have fled or reside across international borders- "

Respected Ambassador, since otherwise its intent is unclear, and the succeeding clauses do not quite fit otherwise.

yours e.t.c.

Of course this happily (for the sake of the word count) means that the last sentence of clause a) would be unecessary.

yours e.t.c. ,

Article 4 should read " where those accused of child abuse have fled or reside across international borders- "

Respected Ambassador, since otherwise its intent is unclear, and the succeeding clauses do not quite fit otherwise.

Thank you. This is a good point. I've updated the proposal to reflect this.

Or in fact it should read "where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have absconded over national borders to another w.a. member nation"

Clause a) could then read " member nations must cooperate in investigating these crimes and in the aprehension of the accused. "

yours e.t.c. ,

Or in fact it should read "where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have absconded over national borders to another w.a. member nation"

Clause a) could then read " member nations must cooperate in investigating these crimes and in the aprehension of the accused. "

Agreed and altered.

Would the most esteemed ambassador from Urgench wish to be named as co-author on the proposal due to the amount of suggestions offered and implemented?

We have just seen that in fact article 4 should read as " where those accused of child abuse reside in another w.a. nation .... etc."

We thank the honoured Ambassador for Rutianas for their offer of co-authorship, but we are merely concerned with legislative rectitude and it is your esteemed delegacy which brought this resolution forward.

yours e.t.c. ,

We do have one large reservation, which is that clause 1 creates a law enforcement agency in international law. This means that strictly speaking this law enforcement agency is only answerable to international law. However this resolution does not have the space to include all the necessary provisions to make sure that this agency is fully answerable to national law and in compliance with legal and governmental requirements of member nations for the creation of such an agency.

Indeed this agency would we fear take a whole resolution to its self to create.
The best position is to assume for now anyway that most member states already have such an agency or that their existing conventional law enforcement agencies have the requisite expertise in this field.

The positive result of removing article 1 would be to prevent this resolution from exceeding the word limit, and it may even leave more space to better flesh out the rest of the resolution.

One other thing, which is certainly our fault for not being consistant in our suggested wordings but, all references to member states of the w.a. should be either to member states or to member nations, but consistantly one or the other.

yours e.t.c. ,

Promising. I don't have time to comment fully right now, but I would like to just quickly note that Section 1 is grammatically awful, and Section 4 is still problematic. You need to consider more carefully who had jurisdiction given the location of the crime, the location of the origination of the crime, and so on. As it stands, I'd still be siding with the NatSov brigade against it.

Promising. I don't have time to comment fully right now, but I would like to just quickly note that Section 1 is grammatically awful, and Section 4 is still problematic. You need to consider more carefully who had jurisdiction given the location of the crime, the location of the origination of the crime, and so on. As it stands, I'd still be siding with the NatSov brigade against it.

We have expressed our objections to article 1, but in what other ways does the respected Ambassador Coch think this resolution infringes upon national sovereignty?

yours e.t.c. ,

We have expressed our objections to article 1, but in what other ways does the respected Ambassador Coch think this resolution infringes upon national sovereignty?

4b.

Assuming that a closely related offense (i.e. part of the same thing really) has been committed on Gobbannaen soil, I would almost always want to try the accused under Gobbannaen law. If anyone demands to try them instead, I can't.

Consider that circulating porn is an offense. Now suppose Ffred lives in Nation A and cheerily distributes porn via the internet. Nations B and C are on good terms with A, and don't torture or execute criminals. The law enforcement agencies in nations B and C catch on to Ffred, and following the proposal both raise charges and demand that Ffred be extradited to them. Nation A is required to extradict him to both of them, which would be a good trick if they could manage it. In this case, extradition isn't just the wrong idea, it's completely hatstand.

4b.

Assuming that a closely related offense (i.e. part of the same thing really) has been committed on Gobbannaen soil, I would almost always want to try the accused under Gobbannaen law. If anyone demands to try them instead, I can't.

Consider that circulating porn is an offense. Now suppose Ffred lives in Nation A and cheerily distributes porn via the internet. Nations B and C are on good terms with A, and don't torture or execute criminals. The law enforcement agencies in nations B and C catch on to Ffred, and following the proposal both raise charges and demand that Ffred be extradited to them. Nation A is required to extradict him to both of them, which would be a good trick if they could manage it. In this case, extradition isn't just the wrong idea, it's completely hatstand.


Ah well this arrises from a rewrite of the original form of words for this clause, originally the requirement was for nations to "readily offer up" or something of that nature, in any case the requirement was not that members "must" extradite. This form appeared in the draft the respected Ambassador for Rutianas provided last night, we always felt that this requirement should have negotiable room for manouveur.

The problem could be solved by wording thus- " states will offer up for extradition those accused of child abuse on receipt and evaluation of all materials pertinent to the charges brought against the accused. Where these charges are false, or where there is prior national interest in prosecuting the accused for similar crimes, or where there are conflicting charges brought against the accused from third party member nation/s, member nations retain the right not to extradite, or alternatively to extradite the accused to the applicant nation of their choosing. This choice should take in to account the magnitiude of all charges against the accused.", Or words to this effect.

Of course the possiblity of members choosing to combine all the charges together and trying the accused in one of the nations in question is always a possibility.

yours e.t.c. ,

Yes, a lot of the wording had been altered from the original suggestion due to character limits. However, the ambassador from Urgench is correct. The previous article 1 dealing with the child protection agency is superfluous and has been removed. As such, I have also taken the suggestions regarding article 4, now article 3, and rewritten the proposal.

Perhaps to save the word count the respected ambassador would consider re-phrasing Article 3 clause c) to " Applicant state/s have the right to appeal an extradition refusal to the courts and authorities of the state of which they made the request." , or words to this effect.

yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps to save the word count the respected ambassador would consider re-phrasing Article 3 clause c) to " Applicant state/s have the right to appeal an extradition refusal to the courts and authorities of the state of which they made the request." , or words to this effect.

Noted and altered. I never can rephrase things just right to conserve word count. Thank you again.

There are no thanks necessary honoured Ambassador, we did after all suggest much of article 3 it is therefore our responsiblity to make sure it does not impede the rest of your resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

There are no thanks necessary honoured Ambassador, we did after all suggest much of article 3 it is therefore our responsiblity to make sure it does not impede the rest of your resolution.

And the addition of article 3 was a very good suggestion indeed.

I also changed some wording to be more consistent throughout the proposal.

Honoured Ambassador might we suggest that Article 1 could be changed somewhat to make it more comprhensive? It could read as-

" Article 1. For the purpose of this resolution Physical abuse of a child is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause this harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined for the purposes of this resolution as any act or behaviour which has the intention of psycologically harming a child.

a) A child is intitled to be cared for, to be given food shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education and not to be physically or emotionally abused.

b) Where the parents of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them.

c) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect or physical or emotional or sexual abuse. "

Or words to this effect.

yours e.t.c. ,

Honoured Ambassador might we suggest that Article 1 could be changed somewhat to make it more comprhensive? It could read as-

" Article 1. For the purpose of this resolution Physical abuse of a child is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause this harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined for the purposes of this resolution as any act or behaviour which has the intention of psycologically harming a child.

a) A child is intitled to be cared for, to be given food shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education and not to be physically or emotionally abused.

b) Where the parents of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them.

c) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect or physical or emotional or sexual abuse. "

Or words to this effect.

Now this is why I like having help. Seriously, if you'd like to be listed as co-author, I'm saving some character space for it. I'll implement the suggestions momentarily.

Also, is there a consensus as to what media constitutes child pornography? That one bit could cause a large debate yet again.

We feel that this resolution will completely cover all the acts involved in making child pornography, therefore completely illegalising it without having to enter the debate about medium of conveyance of pornography. Since this resolution protects only real children it should be clear that it cannot apply to computor generated or otherwise fictional children.

As to your offer of co-authorship, we are flattered but will leave that decision in your hands.

yours e.t.c.,

We feel that this resolution will completely cover all the acts involved in making child pornography, therefore completely illegalising it without having to enter the debate about medium of conveyance of pornography. Since this resolution protects only real children it should be clear that it cannot apply to computor generated or otherwise fictional children.

My thoughts as well.

As to your offer of co-authorship, we are flattered but will leave that decision in your hands.

In Rutianas, we do not take sole credit for work that others have offered so much to make it work. It is only reasonable then that you be listed as co-author on the proposal since you have offered up quite a bit of your time and knowledge in assistance for this proposal.

We are honoured by the esteemed delegacy for Rutianas decision.

May the horde of Rutianas ride swift across the plain for all time.

yours e.t.c.,

Perhaps article 1 clause a) should say " sustainance" instead of "food" to make sure of the intitlement to water aswell, honoured Ambassador.

yours e.t.c. ,

Yes, of course. I've also altered article 2 a bit. I'm still counting characters and so far, it's still just under.

OOC: What about nations in which the age of consent varies from one area to another, as in both the RL USA (where it's defined by the separate states) and Bears Armed?

OOC: What about nations in which the age of consent varies from one area to another, as in both the RL USA (where it's defined by the separate states) and Bears Armed?

ooc: it states:

DEFINES a child to be a person under the age of consent as defined by their home nation

If different nations have different ages of consent within the nation, then that nation can define it as the age of the area within the nation. I'm a little too close to the character limit to open that can of worms, unless someone has a suggestion on how to sum it up easily

OOC: What about nations in which the age of consent varies from one area to another, as in both the RL USA (where it's defined by the separate states) and Bears Armed?


In this case it would be up to the government of the nation of which the child is a citizen to decide on the ability to consent in law of this child.


yours e.t.c.,

O.O.C. RL U.S. states are still states after all, so they are covered in this resolution i think.

U.

We were wondering if the esteemed and respected Ambassador would be offended if we suggested a re-write to article 2's clause b), perhaps it could read-

" Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law inforcement authorities. "

Or words to this effect, we make the suggestion since the phrase used in the current version- " law enforcement " while in common usage is not really clear enough for a statute.

yours e.t.c. ,

We were wondering if the esteemed and respected Ambassador would be offended if we suggested a re-write to article 2's clause b), perhaps it could read-

" Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law inforcement authorities. "

Or words to this effect, we make the suggestion since the phrase used in the current version- " law enforcement " while in common usage is not really clear enough for a statute.

Not offended in the least. The clause has been altered, however, there is no such term as 'inforcement'. Due to this, it must remain 'enforcement'. There could, however, be a definition of law enforcement though I would think most people would recognise this to be those who enforce the law. Police, Court officers, etc.

Perhaps to free up character space the opening words could be changed to-

" Recognises that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature, will
Outlaw this abuse by
Defining a child as being under the age of consent of their nation of citizenship and
Declares; "

Or words to this effect, we think that this is slightly less in character count, though we may be wrong.

yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps to free up character space the opening words could be changed to-

" Recognises that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature, will
Outlaw this abuse by
Defining a child as being under the age of consent of their nation of citizenship and
Declares; "

Or words to this effect, we think that this is slightly less in character count, though we may be wrong.

It is slightly less in character count indeed and it has been implemented.

Not offended in the least. The clause has been altered, however, there is no such term as 'inforcement'. Due to this, it must remain 'enforcement'. There could, however, be a definition of law enforcement though I would think most people would recognise this to be those who enforce the law. Police, Court officers, etc.


Indeed most people might well understand "enforcement" ( sorry for our mistake ) to mean what you say honoured Ambassador, but the law must make allowance for the cunning of those who will wish to take advantage of any possible misinterpretation of wording in a statute.

Clarity is the chief virtue in law making. At least in our opinion that is.

your sincerely,

Indeed most people might well understand "enforcement" ( sorry for our mistake ) to mean what you say honoured Ambassador, but the law must make allowance for the cunning of those who will wish to take advantage of any possible misinterpretation of wording in a statute.

Clarity is the chief virtue in law making. At least in our opinion that is.

Agreed. I could add a short definition of law enforcement to mean police and court officers, but this doesn't extend to nations where police are non-existent or referred to as something else.

In Rutianas, it is our military that acts as law enforcement, not a police force.

I'm not quite sure how to phrase it so that it cannot be a loophole for someone. Perhaps 'nationally recognized law enforcement'?

"Law enforcement authorities", would probably be the best solution, since an authority may be interpreted to mean wha ever system is in place in a member nation.

yours e.t.c.,

I swear I'm thinking too hard here. Best solution, yes. Implemented.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is happy to see this Proposal, and the work being done on it. It is a much better replacement for the "Prohibit Child Pornography" Resolution so recently defeated.

However, She does have some issues with Article Three.

1. Her first issue is that this Resolution creates a de facto extradition treaty between all WA member nations, for the issues covered under this Resolution, without the due process normally taken in negotiating full extradition treaties between nations. There are no provisions here to deal with differences in legal systems, the rights (or lack there-of) of the accused, requirements on the asking nation to uphold certain standards, rules of evidence, etc.

This infringes upon the national sovereignty of each nation to decide when, and how, to deal with extradition as well as how to best protect the rights of those found within the borders of said nation.

2. The Holy Empire has issues with Clause 3a in such that it makes the law enforcement agencies of the one country an extension of the legal system of the nation requesting the extradition. Again: issues of the legality of evidence gathering, due process, the rights of the accused, etc. have not been dealt with.

3. The Holy Empire has issues with Clause 3b in such that it essentially requires processing the extradition request, claiming national interest in prosecuting the accused for similar crimes, or holding some form of trial - de facto or de jure - to determine if the charges are false. No provisions are made for how a "false" determination is to be made. Given that there are different jurisdictions involved, there will most certainly be issues around the legality of evidence used, jurisprudence, and due process that will complicate the issue.

4. The Holy Empire has issues with Clause 3b in that it only creates two possible exemptions for extradition, namely torture and capital punishment. There are other reasons for which extradition should be refused. Other forms of human rights violations, for example; based upon the norms and values of the extraditing nation. Or for sentencing that, in the opinion of the extraditing nation, are excessive.

Therefore, the Holy Empire of New Illuve recommends replacing the entirety of Article Three with something simpler that hopefully deals with the above issues:


3. Where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have fled over national borders to another W.A. nation, the laws and treaties between those nations regarding extradition shall be respected. Where such extradition treaties are not in place, the involved nations are encouraged to seek a resolution that respects the request and the legal systems of the nations involved.

Article 3 is Urgench's article. I'll defer to his judgement on this one.

Since the proposal is so close to the character limit as is, we're finding pruning of things to be priority rather than addition. Provided both of us agree on the alteration of article 3, it will be implemented as soon as possible.

I thank you, honored ambassador from New Illuve, for your comments on our proposal.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is happy to see this Proposal, and the work being done on it. It is a much better replacement for the "Prohibit Child Pornography" Resolution so recently defeated.

However, She does have some issues with Article Three.

1. Her first issue is that this Resolution creates a de facto extradition treaty between all WA member nations, for the issues covered under this Resolution, without the due process normally taken in negotiating full extradition treaties between nations. There are no provisions here to deal with differences in legal systems, the rights (or lack there-of) of the accused, requirements on the asking nation to uphold certain standards, rules of evidence, etc.

This infringes upon the national sovereignty of each nation to decide when, and how, to deal with extradition as well as how to best protect the rights of those found within the borders of said nation.

2. The Holy Empire has issues with Clause 3a in such that it makes the law enforcement agencies of the one country an extension of the legal system of the nation requesting the extradition. Again: issues of the legality of evidence gathering, due process, the rights of the accused, etc. have not been dealt with.

3. The Holy Empire has issues with Clause 3b in such that it essentially requires processing the extradition request, claiming national interest in prosecuting the accused for similar crimes, or holding some form of trial - de facto or de jure - to determine if the charges are false. No provisions are made for how a "false" determination is to be made. Given that there are different jurisdictions involved, there will most certainly be issues around the legality of evidence used, jurisprudence, and due process that will complicate the issue.

4. The Holy Empire has issues with Clause 3b in that it only creates two possible exemptions for extradition, namely torture and capital punishment. There are other reasons for which extradition should be refused. Other forms of human rights violations, for example; based upon the norms and values of the extraditing nation. Or for sentencing that, in the opinion of the extraditing nation, are excessive.

Therefore, the Holy Empire of New Illuve recommends replacing the entirety of Article Three with something simpler that hopefully deals with the above issues:


With respect honoured Ambassador, the standards for fair criminal trial have been promulgated by this organisation already as per this resolution http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835887&postcount=15 , therefore the standards of treatment of the accused in regard to due process are already harmonised. this should cover the honoured Ambassador's complaint on these grounds. We should point out that this organisation has not recognised in law very many Human Rights and is therefore not bound to observe them in its laws. But that is a purely legalistic point.

Clause b) protects the right of nations to refuse extradition on certain specific grounds, it can be altered to fit a broader field of reasons for refusal of course. But this must not be so broad a field as to render the entire article inopperative.

Clause a) requires cooperation between states, this does not amalgamate national law enforcement agencies with each other, it does what it says and no more.

We should also point out that this resolution deals with what in fact is a very small number of crimes in proportion to the overall instance of crime. The provisions for cooperation will apply to a small number of cases and crimes of a tremendously grave nature. Would the respected Ambassador like to see a situation where child abusers can flee to a particularly recalcitrant nation which regularly refuses cooperation on principle, thereby evading justice?

However we do see merit in the suggested wording of the respected Ambassador, and would have no objection to it replacing the current wording of clause b) of article 3 but we would strongly object to the removal of the other two clauses, the benfits of which out way any inpingement they may make on national prerogative.

Yours e.t.c.,

Indeed, WA Resolution #13 stipulates a number of rights, but those are not necessarily exhaustive. For example, many nations have a right against self incrimination, but may differ on where the border for self incrimination is. Think on whether or not DNA can be taken from a person. Many nations prohibit the use of evidence gained via duress, but the legal definition of what duress is may be different, resulting in evidence that is legally admissible in one jurisdiction not being legally admissible in the other. And another example: what would be considered entrapment in one location may not in another.

The Resolution that the esteemed Ambassador Mongkha of Urgench refers to does not address such issues. The accused does have the right to a fair trial, but the Resolution does not go on to define what a "fair" trial is. And with the plethora of legal systems to be found within the membership of the World Assembly it would be nigh unto impossible to imagine that there will not be conflicts. However, there is also nothing in this Proposal to disallow the extraditing nation from summarily declaring the charges as "false" thereby side-stepping the whole issue.

The Holy Empire finds the question of Ambassador Mongkha to be disingenuous. Why restrict the question only to issues of child sexual exploitation? Replace "child abusers" with "adult rapists" or "mass murderers" or indeed any tremendously grievous crime; is the Ambassador suggesting that those individuals shouldn't be included as well? Appeals to emotion may have a place in politics, but in the realm of law principles should be the guiding focus. The desire to bring child abusers to justice does not justify the trampling of the rights of the accused. Or should the accused not be afforded any rights at all?

Upon further review of this Proposal, the Holy Empire of New Illuve has another issue in that the age of consent may be confused with what is usually called the age of majority.

For this Proposal, a "child" is defined in terms of age of consent. While this term is not defined, the Holy Empire assumes that it means the legal age at which a person is determined to be able to make sexual decisions for him or her self. In the case where the age of consent is lower than the age of majority, this Proposal allows for the emotional and physical abuse of those between the two ages - subject to the restrictions of other, national, laws. It allows for the discontinuation of education, and the withholding of sustenance, shelter, and clothing as well.

The Holy Empire is confused as to why the age of consent here is relevant. She finds that the age of majority would be a better measure for this Article, thereby preserving the intent behind it in the absence of national laws.

We are not being disingenous respected Ambassador nor are we appealing to emotion. We are pointing out logical consequences to certain trains of thought.

This is not a resolution which aims to cover the rights of the accused, nor does it deal with other crimes than child abuse, this is because it is a resolution dealing with the protection of children. Other resolutions will doubtless cover the other crimes the respected Ambassador mentions.

Indeed the respected Ambassador could write them if they wished.

We have further considered the respected Ambassador's suggested wording, and for a clause b) rewrite we would suggest this compromise-


" Treaties between member states should be respected in regard to extradition requests of those charged with child abuse. Where no such treaty exists member states must find a resolution which respects the extradition request and the legal systems of the member states involved. "

This would properly fit the clause into the structure and purpose of the resolution we feel.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would have no issues with the proposed text for Article 3b. She thanks the esteemed Ambassador for it.

Upon further review of this Proposal, the Holy Empire of New Illuve has another issue in that the age of consent may be confused with what is usually called the age of majority.

For this Proposal, a "child" is defined in terms of age of consent. While this term is not defined, the Holy Empire assumes that it means the legal age at which a person is determined to be able to make sexual decisions for him or her self. In the case where the age of consent is lower than the age of majority, this Proposal allows for the emotional and physical abuse of those between the two ages - subject to the restrictions of other, national, laws. It allows for the discontinuation of education, and the withholding of sustenance, shelter, and clothing as well.

The Holy Empire is confused as to why the age of consent here is relevant. She finds that the age of majority would be a better measure for this Article, thereby preserving the intent behind it in the absence of national laws.

This resolution makes no mention of the age of majority because its proposers chose for this to be the case.

The respected Ambassador will be opening a vast can of worms if they wish for any resoluion to define the age of consent for all member states or the age of majority for that matter.

The age of consent is defined in this resolution as that which is set by each member state for its own children for this reason.

The gap between the age of consent and the age of majority is a matter for the respected Ambassador for Rutianas to explain. We would have extended the rights of the child to not be abused physically or emotionally to the age of majority and left sexual abuse logically behind at the age of consent.

yours e.t.c. ,

Upon further review of this Proposal, the Holy Empire of New Illuve has another issue in that the age of consent may be confused with what is usually called the age of majority.

For this Proposal, a "child" is defined in terms of age of consent. While this term is not defined, the Holy Empire assumes that it means the legal age at which a person is determined to be able to make sexual decisions for him or her self. In the case where the age of consent is lower than the age of majority, this Proposal allows for the emotional and physical abuse of those between the two ages - subject to the restrictions of other, national, laws. It allows for the discontinuation of education, and the withholding of sustenance, shelter, and clothing as well.

The Holy Empire is confused as to why the age of consent here is relevant. She finds that the age of majority would be a better measure for this Article, thereby preserving the intent behind it in the absence of national laws.

This is something that I have thought out. I originally had age of consent or majority, however, it could have been a loophole.

Rutianas' age of consent is 17, but age of majority is 12. If we were to have age of majority, then sexual abuse would be legal at age 12 for Rutianas, whereas we already have strict laws that sexual consent is at 17.

The age of consent in many nations seems to be after or at the age of majority.

A compromise could be:

Defining a child as being under the age of consent or majority, unless the age of consent is greater, of their nation of citizenship

This could then lay to rest the argument between consent or majority.

We would support that respected Ambassador.

yours e.t.c. ,

In fact we would prefer it to be-

" under the age of Majority or Consent which ever is higher ",

this covers as many children as possible we think.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is aware that She may, indeed, be opening the proverbial "can of worms" by bringing up discussions regarding "age of consent" and "age of majority". In the Holy Empire, the age of consent is not a simple, static, age, but involves a sliding scale that takes in account the actual ages of those involved, the age differences, and the activities involved. Her solution to how to implement this Proposal into that framework will take some thought.

It is possible to leave the Proposal as it is, in the hope that a future Resolution or national legislation will deal with the issue at hand. That, however, is not an appealing solution to the Holy Empire, although it may be the most practical and expedient one.

While realizing that the concept of "age of majority" may also not be so simple as a single age, She puts forth the following for your consideration:

1. For the purpose of this Article: a child is under the age of majority in the country of his or her nationality; physical abuse as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause this harm; and emotional abuse as any act or behavior which has the intention of psychologically harming a child

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education and not to be physically or emotionally abused

b) Where the parents of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them

c) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect or physical or emotional or sexual abuse

2. For the purpose of this Article: a child is under the age of consent in the country of his or her nationality; sexual abuse of a child as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real, between an adult and a child, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) Possession, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal, except in cases to release the media to law enforcement authorities

b) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities

c) Knowing involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse will also be punishable

d) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent or agents are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

The areas in which changes have been suggested have been highlighted. One deletion has been made: the phrase "for the purposes of the enjoyment of the adult or others." The Holy Empire does not feel that the motive for the sexual abuse is relevant but that is Her opinion.

Oh goodness please excuse us, we withdraw that last request of ours and will support our original position, we misread the suggested wording of the respected Ambassador for Rutianas.

yours e.t.c. ,

Rutianas' age of consent is 17, but age of majority is 12. If we were to have age of majority, then sexual abuse would be legal at age 12 for Rutianas, whereas we already have strict laws that sexual consent is at 17.

It is not that sexual abuse is legal at the lower age of majority in this case. The only thing said is that it is illegal under the age of 12. Any nation can (and must have, I think) laws to protect people, but laws between nations can be different according to belief and views. But an international law does not have to protect anyone. It must have a goal for improving things. But it should never has the goal to settle everything.

So I think it is better to the nations setting the age between children and adults.

Regards

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is aware that She may, indeed, be opening the proverbial "can of worms" by bringing up discussions regarding "age of consent" and "age of majority". In the Holy Empire, the age of consent is not a simple, static, age, but involves a sliding scale that takes in account the actual ages of those involved, the age differences, and the activities involved. Her solution to how to implement this Proposal into that framework will take some thought.

It is possible to leave the Proposal as it is, in the hope that a future Resolution or national legislation will deal with the issue at hand. That, however, is not an appealing solution to the Holy Empire, although it may be the most practical and expedient one.

While realizing that the concept of "age of majority" may also not be so simple as a single age, She puts forth the following for your consideration:



The areas in which changes have been suggested have been highlighted. One deletion has been made: the phrase "for the purposes of the enjoyment of the adult or others." The Holy Empire does not feel that the motive for the sexual abuse is relevant but that is Her opinion.


Considering that this resolution is supposed to respond to the recent failed resolution on child pornography it would seem wise to make mention of it, especially if the word "feigned" remains in the draft.

However if the definition of the child suggested by the respected Ambassador for Rutianas is included we will support this draft.

yours e.t.c.,

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is aware that She may, indeed, be opening the proverbial "can of worms" by bringing up discussions regarding "age of consent" and "age of majority". In the Holy Empire, the age of consent is not a simple, static, age, but involves a sliding scale that takes in account the actual ages of those involved, the age differences, and the activities involved. Her solution to how to implement this Proposal into that framework will take some thought.

It is possible to leave the Proposal as it is, in the hope that a future Resolution or national legislation will deal with the issue at hand. That, however, is not an appealing solution to the Holy Empire, although it may be the most practical and expedient one.

While realizing that the concept of "age of majority" may also not be so simple as a single age, She puts forth the following for your consideration:

I chose the wording I did to protect all children from abuse, recognizing that at the time their nation deems them capable of consenting to sexual relationships, that these individuals are likely capable of creating a life for themselves.

However, this may not always be the case. As such, the definition should stand as 'age of consent or majority, unless the age of consent is greater', thus protecting potentially young children from the acts of physical and emotional abuse.

In fact we would prefer it to be-

" under the age of Majority or Consent which ever is higher ",

this covers as many children as possible we think.

yours e.t.c. ,

I would have to disagree with this wording, As they would define anyone under 18 in my region as a child. Yet again. The Age of consent should stand as the current measure. As you would automatically void my nations Age of Consent which is 15. As such I would have to vote against it under that clause alone. I will not allow a resolution to define what my age of consent is or isn't or what a child is or isn't, unless the resolution uses the laws my nation already has on said subject, itself. Also Like the above nation mine has many ages , the Age of Consent is 15 and it is also the age when one can first work without a 'minors permit' the Legal Age to drive is 16 and to vote is 16 to Gamble Drink Smoke and Join the military is 18 which would be I suppose this laws Oldest age. So you would be inferring that those in my nation who are driving holding a job and voting as children.

why not just define the age of a child as - the age a child is already defined as, in individual member nations in regards to this law, regardless of consent or majority ages- ???

or - the age of a child is defined as that of below the age of sexual consent _ ??
(why does the age of majority matter ??? , if a one can have sex, then it can be assumed that a one will know and be able to give permission if he or she wants to be on porn ? as for sexual abuse, once over the age of sexual consent it will become a case of rape or molest or incest and judged as per existing laws on that matter )

that could solve the issues .... what do u think about that ???


cheers !!!

This is coming along very promisingly!

If no one has yet made you aware, the character limit is 3,500. With formatting changes, you have about 5-600 spare at the moment.

Some comments:

Your preamble doesn't make much sense as it stands. I strongly suggest beginning with 'The World Assembly,' and then using activating verbs (present participles). So it would become:

The World Assembly

Recognising that children are abused and neglected, and knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,

Seeking to outlaw this abuse,

Declares:
You should then move the definition into the substantive section, such that it has legal force. So either precede '[d]eclares' with 'Defines...', or make Article 1 'A child is defined as...'

On the subject of that definition, 'being under the age of consent of their nation of citizenship' doesn't work because in some nations, a child is not a citizen. I would recommend 'their nation of nationality'.
a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education and not to be physically or emotionally abused
Basic medical care?
b) Where the parents of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them
I think this is a slightly culturally closeted view. In some societies, children are raised communally. In many societies, even where being raised by parents is the norm, aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. may play a role, as might legal guardians in lieu of parents. I would suggest changing 'parents' to 'family or guardians'.
2. For the purpose of this resolution, sexual abuse of a child is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of the enjoyment of the adult or others, between an adult and a person defined a child by this resolution, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question
The use of 'enjoyment' is questionable. I think it should be specified as 'sexual gratification': one can aesthetically and non-sexually enjoy, for example, a film version of Lolita that involves an act of feigned sexual intimacy between a minor and an adult.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

It is not that sexual abuse is legal at the lower age of majority in this case. The only thing said is that it is illegal under the age of 12. Any nation can (and must have, I think) laws to protect people, but laws between nations can be different according to belief and views. But an international law does not have to protect anyone. It must have a goal for improving things. But it should never has the goal to settle everything.

So I think it is better to the nations setting the age between children and adults.

Which is what this is attempting to do. If it stands at the age of majority or consent, unless age of consent is greater, then Rutianas' 12 year olds are still protected from abuse until they reach the age of 17, since the age of consent is greater than the age of majority.

In cases where the opposite is true and the age of majority is above the age of consent, the nation may choose which age to abide by, but anything below the age of consent is considered illegal. If a nation chooses to make it illegal below the age of majority as well, that is their choice, and I would likely commend such a decision.

This is coming along very promisingly!

If no one has yet made you aware, the character limit is 3,500. With formatting changes, you have about 5-600 spare at the moment.

Some comments:

Your preamble doesn't make much sense as it stands. I strongly suggest beginning with 'The World Assembly,' and then using activating verbs (present participles). So it would become:

The World Assembly

Recognising that children are abused and neglected, and knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,

Seeking to outlaw this abuse,

Declares:
You should then move the definition into the substantive section, such that it has legal force. So either precede '[d]eclares' with 'Defines...', or make Article 1 'A child is defined as...'

On the subject of that definition, 'being under the age of consent of their nation of citizenship' doesn't work because in some nations, a child is not a citizen. I would recommend 'their nation of nationality'.

Basic medical care?

I think this is a slightly culturally closeted view. In some societies, children are raised communally. In many societies, even where being raised by parents is the norm, aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. may play a role, as might legal guardians in lieu of parents. I would suggest changing 'parents' to 'family or guardians'.

The use of 'enjoyment' is questionable. I think it should be specified as 'sexual gratification': one can aesthetically and non-sexually enjoy, for example, a film version of Lolita that involves an act of feigned sexual intimacy between a minor and an adult.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Thank you. All good points. I did have the legal term guardians in there at one point, but it got lost in the myriad of changes. I will put an edit of the proposal up soon. Once I get it sorted out, that is.

Any other suggestions received will be taken into account between then and now for the next edit.

This is coming along very promisingly!

If no one has yet made you aware, the character limit is 3,500. With formatting changes, you have about 5-600 spare at the moment.

Some comments:

Your preamble doesn't make much sense as it stands. I strongly suggest beginning with 'The World Assembly,' and then using activating verbs (present participles). So it would become:

The World Assembly

Recognising that children are abused and neglected, and knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,

Seeking to outlaw this abuse,

Declares:
You should then move the definition into the substantive section, such that it has legal force. So either precede '[d]eclares' with 'Defines...', or make Article 1 'A child is defined as...'

On the subject of that definition, 'being under the age of consent of their nation of citizenship' doesn't work because in some nations, a child is not a citizen. I would recommend 'their nation of nationality'.

Basic medical care?

I think this is a slightly culturally closeted view. In some societies, children are raised communally. In many societies, even where being raised by parents is the norm, aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. may play a role, as might legal guardians in lieu of parents. I would suggest changing 'parents' to 'family or guardians'.

The use of 'enjoyment' is questionable. I think it should be specified as 'sexual gratification': one can aesthetically and non-sexually enjoy, for example, a film version of Lolita that involves an act of feigned sexual intimacy between a minor and an adult.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria



The government of the emperor of Urgench would absolutely concur with all the suggestions made by the esteemed and respected Ambassador for the Quintessence of Dust, and would heartily support their inclusion in the current draft of this resolution.

yours sincerely,

The government of the emperor of Urgench would absolutely concur with all the suggestions made by the esteemed and respected Ambassador for the Quintessence of Dust, and would heartily support their inclusion in the current draft of this resolution.

The suggested changes have been made to the proposal and is now available for viewing.

Right, I've got some time to give this proper consideration now. Here goes.

Defining a child as being under the age of consent or majority, unless the age of consent is greater, of their nation of citizenship and
Hmm. There's a point being missed here. I'll illustrate it as we go along.

1. [snip]
a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education
When is a person considered legally capable of caring for themselves? At the Age of Majority. Or Ages of Majority, given that there are several distinct things bundled together here.

and not to be physically or emotionally abused
Sometimes this will be an Age of Majority issue, and sometimes an Age of Consent. It depends on the nature of the (alleged) abuse.

Now, presumably the nations which set different ages of consent and ages of majority do so for some reason -- OK, that's hopelessly optimistic, most of them won't have thought about it at all, they'll just have picked random numbers that sound nice. But still, they are their random numbers, and you've expressed a desire not to trample over their choices. Picking either the age of consent or the age of majority will do exactly that. Instead, pick the one that's relevant to the particular right.

b) Where the parents of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them
Fine by me. I can hear the anguish of the nations who hate the idea of the welfare state from here :-)

a) Possession, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal, except in cases to release the media to law enforcement authorities
Here's another case where picking the right age for your definition of "child" is critical. Picking the Age of Majority would potentially make completely consenting activities into child abuse.

3. Where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have fled over national borders to another W.A. nation,
[snip]
b) Treaties between member states should be respected in regard to extradition requests of those charged with child abuse. Where no such treaty exists member states must find a resolution which respects the extradition request and the legal systems of the member states involved.
This is greatly improved, thank you Khan Mongkha. I still have problems with the second sentence, which can be read in rather a lot of different ways as far as I can see.

The sort of thing I was hoping for was more along the lines of "Where no such treaty exists, member nations may request extradition of those charged with child abuse under the terms of this resolution. Member nations may grant or refuse such requests at the discretion of their legal system. Refusal must be justified on grounds which include but are not limited to concern for the safety of the accused, giving priority to other requests and charges against the accused, and whether or not the act is illegal in the nation making the decision." That's a bit long-winded, but if you've got the spare word count it would be good to spell out that the nation handed the extradition request can refuse it if they decide to.

We do still have to recognise that under any version of this resolution that doesn't run rough-shod over local definitions of what a child is, some acts will be illegal in some nations and legal in others. While I'd be very much against illegalising thing unnecessarily, good neighbourliness does suggest that distributing porn across borders into a nation where it is illegal should be an offence in the originating nation, even if the porn itself wouldn't be considered illegal there. At the very least, it's bad manners.

So noted.

Making physical and emotional abuse only illegal until the age of majority can leave some fairly young children vulnerable to it. My concern is that a nation, like Rutianas, may have an age of majority in which a child may drink, smoke, gamble, and vote, but the age of consent falls five years later when the child is then considered capable to provide for themselves.

I believe the pitfall that needs to be addressed is where does a child become an adult. Perhaps the wording should be clearer.

a child is defined as any person under the age that their nation of nationality has designated as the age when the child has become an adult

Or something like that. Any suggestions on how to better rephrase that to keep confusion down?

I believe the pitfall that needs to be addressed is where does a child become an adult.
At the appropriate age of majority for some purposes, and the appropriate age of consent for others. Yes, it's all very confused. We don't use the term "age of majority" in Gobbannium for precisely that reason; don't worry about that, it's perfectly obvious what the translation is in any given situation. I just caution against assuming that "one size fits all" even within a single nation.

Perhaps the wording should be clearer.
a child is defined as any person under the age that their nation of nationality has designated as the age when the child has become an adult
Isn't that a bit circular? Again, I'd point out that over here, we don't have a single age where that switchover happens.

I support it as is. If people are against it, further trade embargos will be followed by the Imperial Amston Navy being off their shores to ensure no smuggling ships are making it past.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is confused by this statement:

[quoet]Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority, unless the age of consent is greater[/quote]

In the case where the age of consent is not equal to the age of majority, which age is to be used for the definition of a child? This has not been clearly specified, and as such the "child" in Article One and Article Two can be defined as either one without guidance from this Proposal.

Given the two ages used to define a "child" this would lead to four possible understandings of how to interpret Articles One and Two, all equally valid yet not in agreement with each other.

The Holy Empire asks that this situation be clarified.

We feel that the advice of respected Ambassador Coch should be applied by specifiying that the provisions of article 2 only apply to children under the age of consent. And specifying what is meant by a child where necessary elsewhere.

With regard to respected Ambassador Cochs suggested re-write of clause b) of article 3,
we feel that it essentially rubber stamps current conditions and does not work to streamline the processes of extradition in this situation, we suggest-

"Where no such treaty exists, member states may request extradition of those charged with child abuse under the terms of this resolution. Member states may refuse such requests, however refusal must be justified on grounds which include but are not limited to ( where other grounds are made clear to applicant state/s) concern for the safety or life of the accused, giving priority to the magnitude of and national interest in other requests and charges against the accused, or the veracity of the charges"

We removed the last sentence since it is obviated by the fact that this resolution defines what child abuse is and if charges are not based upon this definition they are beyond the competence of this resolution, in any event the stipulation " but are not limited to" will offer enough room for nations to refuse on such grounds.

yours e.t.c. ,

yours e.t.c. ,

We feel that the advice of respected Ambassador Coch should be applied by specifiying that the provisions of article 2 only apply to children under the age of consent. And specifying what is meant by a child where necessary elsewhere.

With regard to respected Ambassador Cochs suggested re-write of clause b) of article 3,
we feel that it essentially rubber stamps current conditions and does not work to streamline the processes of extradition in this situation, we suggest-

"Where no such treaty exists, member states may request extradition of those charged with child abuse under the terms of this resolution. Member states may refuse such requests, however refusal must be justified on grounds which include but are not limited to ( where other grounds are made clear to applicant state/s) concern for the safety or life of the accused, giving priority to the magnitude of and national interest in other requests and charges against the accused, or the veracity of the charges"

We removed the last sentence since it is obviated by the fact that this resolution defines what child abuse is and if charges are not based upon this definition they are beyond the competence of this resolution, in any event the stipulation " but are not limited to" will offer enough room for nations to refuse on such grounds.

I have edited with the changes.

I'm still not sure about making article 1 only for those over the age of majority as there are nations where age of majority is much younger than age of consent. Defining a child will never be easy because of the different cultures.

As it stands now, children between twelve and seventeen in Rutianas are potentially vulnerable to physical and emotional abuse. I'm sure you see the issue with defining age of majority only for physical and emotional abuse.

Likewise, if a nation has a much greater age of a majority than consent, it's setting them up for having to protect them against physical and emotional abuse for much longer than they would like.

I'm honestly going to recommend we consider going back to just 'age of consent' for the whole thing. If the age of consent is less than the age of majority, then I can put in something that urges nations to continue to protect children against physical and emotional abuse until that age has been reached.

In the legends and fables of the so called "real world" it was the custom of almost all of the mythical "European nations" to set their ages of majority above that of their ages of consent, broadly this meant 16 for consent and 18 for majority. This should in no way be instructive as to how we should frame this resolutions provisions but perhaps it is illuminating.

However, the provisions of article 1 could be specified to apply to a child defined as under the age of majority or consent which ever is higher, and the provisions of article 2 could be specified to apply to a child defined as simply under the age of consent.

We are sure it will not be too great an imposition on young people for there to be a requirement that their families not physically or emotionally abuse them and supply them with the rudiments of existence if this is beyond their age of consent.

yours e.t.c.,

Indeed our researchers tell us that this was a formula used in resolutions of this kind which were successfull in the previous incarnation of this organisation.

yours e.t.c.,

The objection that the Holy Empire of New Illuve would have to using only the age of consent within the entirety of this Proposal is that the age of consent deals, in the usual sense of the phrase, with sexual activities and when one is deemed old enough to make sexual decisions on his or her own.

That has little to nothing to do with the protections with regards to physical and emotional abuse afforded by this Proposal. To use any age of consent as a boundary when there is no relevant factors connecting the two is just as arbitrary as setting a fixed age of 18, for example.

The Holy Empire is coming to the opinion that this Proposal is attempting to do too much at one time. The motivation for this Proposal came out of the objectionable Proposal regarding banning child pornography, but has since grown into a combination of child rights and protection from sexual exploitation Proposal.

The Holy Empire, while not wanting to disparage the work done here, would like to pose the question if this is a good way forward? Perhaps it would be better to focus this Proposal to one or the other, thereby hopefully creating a better Proposal by removing unnecessary complications.

The objection that the Holy Empire of New Illuve would have to using only the age of consent within the entirety of this Proposal is that the age of consent deals, in the usual sense of the phrase, with sexual activities and when one is deemed old enough to make sexual decisions on his or her own.

That has little to nothing to do with the protections with regards to physical and emotional abuse afforded by this Proposal. To use any age of consent as a boundary when there is no relevant factors connecting the two is just as arbitrary as setting a fixed age of 18, for example.

The Holy Empire is coming to the opinion that this Proposal is attempting to do too much at one time. The motivation for this Proposal came out of the objectionable Proposal regarding banning child pornography, but has since grown into a combination of child rights and protection from sexual exploitation Proposal.

The Holy Empire, while not wanting to disparage the work done here, would like to pose the question if this is a good way forward? Perhaps it would be better to focus this Proposal to one or the other, thereby hopefully creating a better Proposal by removing unnecessary complications.


The reason for this statute is manifest. This is not a national parliament after all and the better part of international law is to create laws which effect billions of people in as many positive ways as possible.

The creation of a statute outlining the rights of the child is a far better option than dealing with specific issues which effect children in a piece meal fashion. Doubtless multiple resolutions will leave too many lacunae, and will end up conflicting with each other or even superceding each other.

This resolution will do what several would do, without the need to ban a number of specific crimes or to battle multiple cultural differences in legal interpretation.

The formula we have suggested above should we think cover all the issues regarding consent vs. majority. It is a formula which we are informed was mad good use of by this organisation's previous incrnation, in this case we are happy to conclude that what worked in the past will do for the present.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Holy Empire is in full agreement with the Ambassador Kashgar regarding the formulation "However, the provisions of article 1 could be specified to apply to a child defined as under the age of majority or consent which ever is higher, and the provisions of article 2 could be specified to apply to a child defined as simply under the age of consent." In fact, the Holy Empire of New Illuve had already suggested such a formulation (page 4), namely:
1. For the purpose of this Article: a child is under the age of majority in the country of his or her nationality; physical abuse as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause this harm; and emotional abuse as any act or behavior which has the intention of psychologically harming a child...

2. For the purpose of this Article: a child is under the age of consent in the country of his or her nationality; sexual abuse of a child as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real, between an adult and a child, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question...

Khan Mongkha, as ever your wording is better than mine.

As it stands now, children between twelve and seventeen in Rutianas are potentially vulnerable to physical and emotional abuse. I'm sure you see the issue with defining age of majority only for physical and emotional abuse.
No, not really. You consider twelve-year-olds to be adults for all purposes except, apparently, sexual consent. They can make their own decisions, vote (assuming Rutianas is a democracy, sorry I didn't stop to check), move away from home and set up on their own, drink alcohol and in general do anything a twenty-year-old could as long as it doesn't involve consent. That's what "Age of Majority" means, when it's applied in a monolithic way. It seems weird to me, but it's your nation's choice.

If you're concerned about twelve-year-olds needing protection, your national law probably shouldn't be defining them as not needing protection. It's hard to see how the age of consent has anything much to do with it.

Likewise, if a nation has a much greater age of a majority than consent, it's setting them up for having to protect them against physical and emotional abuse for much longer than they would like.
Ah, I see the problem. I don't see age of consent as being related to a need for protection, physically or emotionally. It's the point where we accept that an individual is capable of understanding what sex involves, and consequently their decisions on it have to be respected. Physical and emotional abuse are a different set of things entirely; they may involve sexual abuse (and thus consent law), but when they don't the criteria are different.

Khan Mongkha, as ever your wording is better than mine.


No, not really. You consider twelve-year-olds to be adults for all purposes except, apparently, sexual consent. They can make their own decisions, vote (assuming Rutianas is a democracy, sorry I didn't stop to check), move away from home and set up on their own, drink alcohol and in general do anything a twenty-year-old could as long as it doesn't involve consent. That's what "Age of Majority" means, when it's applied in a monolithic way. It seems weird to me, but it's your nation's choice.

If you're concerned about twelve-year-olds needing protection, your national law probably shouldn't be defining them as not needing protection. It's hard to see how the age of consent has anything much to do with it.


Ah, I see the problem. I don't see age of consent as being related to a need for protection, physically or emotionally. It's the point where we accept that an individual is capable of understanding what sex involves, and consequently their decisions on it have to be respected. Physical and emotional abuse are a different set of things entirely; they may involve sexual abuse (and thus consent law), but when they don't the criteria are different.



The point being, esteemed Ambassador Coch, that there is more than enough room for both criteria to coexist within this resolution in order that both situations may be dealt with properly.

yours sincerely,

As a point of order, the Holy Empire would like to direct attention to the Sexual Privacy Act which has been submitted for approval. Contained within that Proposal is language that would impact this Proposal, namely the age of consent.

While the Sexual Privacy Act is still seeking approval to be put to vote, attention should be paid to its progress lest this Proposal face language difficulties.

We don't envisage this resolution being actually effected by the honoured Mendosian delegacy's resolution, it defines what an age of consent is and what criteria are invalid in deciding how to set such an thing but none of its statutory instruments impinge on this resolution directly.

The respected Mendosian delegacy's resolution is applicable only to consenting behaviour, this resolution effects behaviour where one or more of the participants is non-consenting. In fact the two are complimentary.

It is possible that the esteemed Mendosian delegacy intended to bring forth their own resolution on child protection, but we think that it would have dealt specifically with sexual abuse only. This resolution is more comprehensive and we think therefore a better statute.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Holy Empire simply wishes to point out that, should the Sexual Privacy Act be passed, there will be a definition of "age of consent" that applies across the whole of the World Assembly. The definition in that Proposal is not limited to only that Proposal by wording such as "for the purposes of this Resolution."

Is it not so that a new Proposal cannot amend a passed Resolution? If the definition of "age of consent" in this Proposal is not in agreement with that in a passed Sexual Privacy Act would that not be an amendment?

At this point the entire subject is academic as the Sexual Privacy Act has not even been put to a vote; Her only desire here is for those writing this Proposal to be attentive to the progress of the Sexual Privacy Act so that changes, if they need to be made, can be done so as to not risk this Proposal on technicalities.

This resolutin does not define consent, therefore it does not amend the sexual privacy resolution. This resolution respects national ages of consent however they may be come by, that is to say whether by w.a. resolution or not Therefore there is no overlap.

We were involved in the process of drafting the sexual privacy act, and we assure them that we will keep in mind any other statutory instruments that may effect this resolution.

We thank the honoured Ambassador for New Illuve for bringing attention to this particular issue and we are sure the honoured Ambassador for Rutianas will do too.

yours sincerely,

The definition of a child really should be " below the age of consent or majority which ever is higher " and this formula should be used in article 1. This is because some nations whilst having an age of consent to sex do not have an age of majority, or alternatively hold the age of consent to be the age of majority. if the sexual privacy bill passes ( and we will be stretching every sinew to make this so ) all nations will have the legal concept of an age of consent, at whatever age they see fit, created for them.

As it stands we are wondering whether or not this resolution should contain a defintion of consent in case the sexual privacy statute does not pass.

If we were to suggest such a definition it would be almost exactly the same as that which is contained in the sexual privacy statute in any case, but perhaps shorter for the purposes of clarity and utility.

yours e.t.c.,

The definition of a child really should be " below the age of consent or majority which ever is higher " and this formula should be used in article 1. This is because some nations whilst having an age of consent to sex do not have an age of majority, or alternatively hold the age of consent to be the age of majority. if the sexual privacy bill passes ( and we will be stretching every sinew to make this so ) all nations will have the legal concept of an age of consent, at whatever age they see fit, created for them.

As it stands we are wondering whether or not this resolution should contain a defintion of consent in case the sexual privacy statute does not pass.

If we were to suggest such a definition it would be almost exactly the same as that which is contained in the sexual privacy statute in any case, but perhaps shorter for the purposes of clarity and utility.

And I would agree with the formula for article 1.

We merely wish to provide a basic form of protection for children, no matter the situation. Whatever else nations do to protect their children is not a matter for us to decide. We just want to keep them safe.

No, not really. You consider twelve-year-olds to be adults for all purposes except, apparently, sexual consent. They can make their own decisions, vote (assuming Rutianas is a democracy, sorry I didn't stop to check), move away from home and set up on their own, drink alcohol and in general do anything a twenty-year-old could as long as it doesn't involve consent. That's what "Age of Majority" means, when it's applied in a monolithic way. It seems weird to me, but it's your nation's choice.

If you're concerned about twelve-year-olds needing protection, your national law probably shouldn't be defining them as not needing protection. It's hard to see how the age of consent has anything much to do with it.

Ah, I see the problem. I don't see age of consent as being related to a need for protection, physically or emotionally. It's the point where we accept that an individual is capable of understanding what sex involves, and consequently their decisions on it have to be respected. Physical and emotional abuse are a different set of things entirely; they may involve sexual abuse (and thus consent law), but when they don't the criteria are different.

Perhaps it is our definition of 'Majority'. I may have phrased it that at 12 our children are considered adults. This is not the best wording for our culture. 12 is when our children gain citizenship and thus have more freedoms. They cannot actually move away from home until they have finished their basic education at age 16.

With the fact that many nations may have a different opinion of what 'Majority' means, perhaps now you will see why I have an issue using the term 'Majority' in a resolution to protect children from abuse?

We absolutely agree. the formula is only necessary for article one really anyway.

What does the respected Ambassador think about defining age of consent, not the actual age of course, but what it is?

yours e.t.c. ,

We absolutely agree. the formula is only necessary for article one really anyway.

What does the respected Ambassador think about defining age of consent, not the actual age of course, but what it is?

yours e.t.c. ,

I'm not sure if it's necessary. Hopefully the Sexual Privacy Act will pass. If we need to define it, then we will.

I should tell you that the respected Ambassador for Mendosia is not running a tg campaign for their resolution this time, since they wish to gauge the level of support without such a campaign before resubmitting it and then running a campaign.

It may lead to your resolution being held back some time.

yours e.t.c.,

I should tell you that the respected Ambassador for Mendosia is not running a tg campaign for their resolution this time, since they wish to guage the level of support without such a campaign before resubmitting it and then running a campaign.

Personally we do not understand this logic but it may lead to your resolution being held back some time.

yours e.t.c.,

Hmm, then perhaps it would be good to have similar wording to define an age of consent.

OOC: I'm right in the path of Ike, so I'm not about to submit this thing for a while anyway. It'll likely be late next week at least before I'd be able to, and even then it may or may not be ready. And that's if I even have internet still. I hate hurricanes. :p

We will put together a form of words if you like, in the next twenty four hours, we will try to make it congruant with that which appears in the sexual privacy statute.

yours e.t.c. ,


O.O.C. Wow! good luck with that, hope ike gives you a miss. when ever you want to submit this is fine with me.

We will put together a form of words if you like, in the next twenty four hours, we will try to make it congruant with that which appears in the sexual privacy statute.

yours e.t.c. ,


O.O.C. Wow! good luck with that, hope ike gives you a miss. when ever you want to submit this is fine with me.

Thank you, honorable ambassador.

OOC: Hopefully it'll hit east of me. Either way, I'll be dealing with a lot of rain and high winds. Clearer picture of what Ike's gonna do tomorrow though. Keeping my fingers crossed that it misses.

The point being, esteemed Ambassador Coch, that there is more than enough room for both criteria to coexist within this resolution in order that both situations may be dealt with properly.
The point being, esteemed Khan, that going with the greatest of the ages of majority and consent doesn't do that. It deals with some situations properly, some with overkill, and the rest with what amounts to condescention when compared with the rest of a nation's rights and duties of a person.

What we should be doing is using the appropriate definition for each individual situation. There will be a period of some years when a person is considered a child for some purposes and an adult for others. If that sounds headache-inducing, it shouldn't; it's exactly the same state that each nation is in right now.

With the fact that many nations may have a different opinion of what 'Majority' means, perhaps now you will see why I have an issue using the term 'Majority' in a resolution to protect children from abuse?

I see your point all right. Unfortunately if you think 'Consent' is any better understood or more consistently defined, then you're sadly mistaken. It's not exactly uncommon for nations to have multiple ages of consent for example, most obviously regarding gay and straight sex.

OOC: fingers thoroughly crossed for you!

The point being, esteemed Khan, that going with the greatest of the ages of majority and consent doesn't do that. It deals with some situations properly, some with overkill, and the rest with what amounts to condescention when compared with the rest of a nation's rights and duties of a person.

What we should be doing is using the appropriate definition for each individual situation. There will be a period of some years when a person is considered a child for some purposes and an adult for others. If that sounds headache-inducing, it shouldn't; it's exactly the same state that each nation is in right now.



I see your point all right. Unfortunately if you think 'Consent' is any better understood or more consistently defined, then you're sadly mistaken. It's not exactly uncommon for nations to have multiple ages of consent for example, most obviously regarding gay and straight sex.

OOC: fingers thoroughly crossed for you!



Absolutely, respected Ambassador Coch, we have agreed that age of consent should be the only criteria for article 2. But as for article 1 it would seem a small price to pay to condescened somewhat to a few nations citizens in one usually very short period of their lives in order to safeguard the wellbeing of perhaps millions of children.
As it is written the resolution does not specify that a child may not refuse the basics of care from their family or the state, therefore a young person above the age of consent but below the age of majority could easily live independantly and yet still expect to avail of a basic level of assistance should their efforts in independance fall short.

This would be a socially beneficial outcome in our opinion.

yours e.t.c. ,

Absolutely, respected Ambassador Coch, we have agreed that age of consent should be the only criteria for article 2. But as for article 1 it would seem a small price to pay to condescened somewhat to a few nations citizens in one usually very short period of their lives in order to safeguard the wellbeing of perhaps millions of children.
As it is written the resolution does not specify that a child may not refuse the basics of care from their family or the state, therefore a young person above the age of consent but below the age of majority could easily live independantly and yet still expect to avail of a basic level of assistance should their efforts in independance fall short.

This would be a socially beneficial outcome in our opinion.

yours e.t.c. ,

And this is precisely what I am aiming for. Making certain that the young in every member nation has the right to some basic care. Whether it's provided by the state or their guardians is up to each nation to decide.

The point being, esteemed Khan, that going with the greatest of the ages of majority and consent doesn't do that. It deals with some situations properly, some with overkill, and the rest with what amounts to condescention when compared with the rest of a nation's rights and duties of a person.

What we should be doing is using the appropriate definition for each individual situation. There will be a period of some years when a person is considered a child for some purposes and an adult for others. If that sounds headache-inducing, it shouldn't; it's exactly the same state that each nation is in right now.

I see your point all right. Unfortunately if you think 'Consent' is any better understood or more consistently defined, then you're sadly mistaken. It's not exactly uncommon for nations to have multiple ages of consent for example, most obviously regarding gay and straight sex.

OOC: fingers thoroughly crossed for you!

Neither point is understood to be the same across the board and I realise that. What we're doing is trying to get this written so that every child has these basic rights.

Perhaps we need a definition of 'age of majority' meaning the age that a child is able to become independent from their guardians?

As for different ages of consent, that would then have the nation require these basic rights up until the age of consent for the individual in question.

OOC: Thanks! I'll need the luck that Ike goes further east! Tropical storm conditions I can deal with, but hurricane force winds? It's been a long time since a hurricane threatened where I live (Austin). Yikes!

We applaud the nation of Rutianas for this initiative.

The Rebublic of Sithias is concerned that the definition for physical abuse seems inadequate.

Basically, Sithias does not want to include parents as criminals under this resolution for physical disciplinary action. Realizing that this is an important issue, we would recommend that this proposal set requirements for each WA member to define physical abuse vs discipline in their individual nation's laws to allow them to better apply the resolutions to their own nations

Under Article 1:
Member State legislatures are to define parameters for physical and emotional abuse into their highest level of government law

Under Article 2:
Member State legislatures are to define parameters for sexual abuse into their highest level of government law

We applaud the nation of Rutianas for this initiative.

The Rebublic of Sithias is concerned that the definition for physical abuse seems inadequate.

Basically, Sithias does not want to include parents as criminals under this resolution for physical disciplinary action. Realizing that this is an important issue, we would recommend that this proposal set requirements for each WA member to define physical abuse vs discipline in their individual nation's laws to allow them to better apply the resolutions to their own nations

Under Article 1:


Under Article 2:


Honoured Ambassador the suggested words you have offered are not really necessary as this resolution clearly defines both physical and sexual child abuse and should this resolution ever be voted in to law by this organisation all of it will emediately become law within member states.

As for your suggestion about discipline this is also not necessary since this is a child protection bill, not a parenting bill, and in any case where this dscipline does not in fact constitute a form of abuse it will not fall in to the defintion of being intended to cause physical harm to a child.

We hope this makes the situation clearer to you respected Ambassador.

yours e.t.c. ,

If different nations have different ages of consent within the nation, then that nation can define it as the age of the area within the nation. I'm a little too close to the character limit to open that can of worms, unless someone has a suggestion on how to sum it up easilyOOC: Ah, I see. I was taking the use of the definite article in "the age of consent", and the bit about "as defined by their home nation", as meaning that there could only be one age within each nation and that that would have to be defined by the national government rather than by sub-national ones.
Would changing the wording to "under the age of consent as defined by their home nation's laws", which would clearly allow national governments to recognise local rights in the matter (and also, if necessary, to have differing ages for different species of sapient beings), be acceptable?

By the way, wouldn't this clause b) Where the parents of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them cross the category boundaries into 'Social Justice'?

Would changing the wording to "under the age of consent as defined by their home nation's laws", which would clearly allow national governments to recognise local rights in the matter (and also, if necessary, to have differing ages for different species of sapient beings), be acceptable?

By the way, wouldn't this clause cross the category boundaries into 'Social Justice'?

Yes, that phrasing can be added.

I'm not sure if it would go into Social Justice to demand that a child still have certain basic rights provided by the state if the guardians or parents are unwilling to provide them, though I'm not entirely sure of that. I don't see how it would though.

I'm not sure if it would go into Social Justice to demand that a child still have certain basic rights provided by the state if the guardians or parents are unwilling to provide them, though I'm not entirely sure of that. I don't see how it would though.

If you take money out of my pocket to make someone else's life better, it's usually Social Justice (A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare).

'The State' has no money. It has to come from somewhere, and that usually means 'taxes'.

Forgive us but don't Human rights resolutions cost something?

yours e.t.c. ,

No. They just increase the Civil Freedoms index: they have no effect on tax rate or government spending.

[Unofficial opinion - the coding may involve more than that.]

well if this resolution must be a social justice resolution then so be it, as far as we are concerned that is.

yours e.t.c.,

well if this resolution must be a social justice resolution then so be it, as far as we are concerned that is.

yours e.t.c.,

Same here. If it changes because of that one clause, I'm okay with it being Social Justice. It still provides the children with the care they deserve to have.

ooc: Ike barely missed me. Went about 90 miles east of me. Whew!

O.O.C. Hey that's excellent news! glad to hear it. :)

I am going to submit the proposal to the WA floor to see what support we have in it's current form. If the honored ambassador would read over it and see if it needs any last minute changes before I do, it would be greatly appreciated.

Child Protection Act
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong

The World Assembly
Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of or majority, where noted, as defined by their nation of nationality,
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex
Defines the age of majority, for the purposes of this resolution, an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,
and
Declares;
1. For the purpose of this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of consent or majority, whichever is greater, is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause this harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined for the purposes of this resolution as any act or behavior which has the intention of psychologically harming a child

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive at least basic medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

b) Where the family or guardians of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them

c) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect or physical or emotional or sexual abuse

d) It is illegal to physically or emotionally abuse a child

2. For the purpose of this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a person defined a child by this resolution, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child who is under their nation of nationality's age of consent

b) Possession, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal, except in cases to release the media to law enforcement authorities

c) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities

d) Knowing involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse will also be punishable

e) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent or agents are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

3. Where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have fled over national borders to another W.A. nation,

a) Member states must cooperate in investigating these crimes and in the apprehension of the accused by providing information, including, but not limited to, all materials involved in charging those accused

b) Where no such treaty exists, member states may request extradition of those charged with child abuse under the terms of this resolution. Member states may refuse such requests, however refusal must be justified on grounds which include but are not limited to (where other grounds are made clear to applicant state/s) concern for the safety or life of the accused, giving priority to the magnitude of and national interest in other requests and charges against the accused, or the veracity of the charges

c)Applicant state/s have the right to appeal an extradition refusal to the courts and authorities of the state of which they made the request

Co-Authored by Urgench





Above is a draft with certain of our revisions in it, we hope that it meets with the honoured Ambassador's approval, if it is now over the word count we will assist in reducing it.

yours e.t.c. ,

Above is a draft with certain of our revisions in it, we hope that it meets with the honoured Ambassador's approval, if it is now over the word count we will assist in reducing it.

yours e.t.c. ,

It's about 250 characters over.

I'd have to think about areas to shorten, but I'm sure they're there.

Child Protection Act
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong

The World Assembly
Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of or majority as defined by their nation of nationality,
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex
Defines the age of majority, for the purposes of this resolution,as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,
and
Declares;
1. For the purpose of this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of consent or majority, whichever is greater, is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause this harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined for the purposes of this resolution as any act or behavior which has the intention of psychologically harming a child

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive at least basic medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

b) Where the family or guardians of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them

c) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect or physical or emotional or sexual abuse


2. For the purpose of this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a person defined a child by this resolution, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child who is under their nation of nationality's age of consent

b) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal.

c) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used by law enforcement agancies or for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities

d) Knowing involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal

e) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

3. Where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have fled over national borders to another W.A. nation,

a) Member states must cooperate in investigation and apprehension of the accused by providing information, including, but not limited to, all materials involved in charging those accused

b) Where no such treaty exists, member states may request extradition of those charged with child abuse under the terms of this resolution. Member states may refuse such requests, however refusal must be justified on grounds which include but are not limited to ( other grounds must be made clear to applicant state/s) concern for the safety or life of the accused, veracity of charges, giving priority to the magnitude of and national interest in other requests and charges against the accused.

c)Applicant state/s have the right to appeal an extradition refusal to the courts and authorities of the state of which they made the request

Co-Authored by Urgench





We think we have shortened it somewhat, is this better respected Ambassador?


yours e.t.c.

It's still about 60 characters off.

With defining the age of majority in the top, perhaps we can remove some of the wording from article 1 to read:

1. For the purpose of this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the intention of psychologically harming a child

Shortening it up to read this way will bring us down to needing only 25 characters removed. I'm not quite sure where to remove them.

c) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

Little bit of rewording to mean the same thing, getting the count down to about 20 characters needing pruned.

Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,

Same meaning, now only 10 characters too long.

I'm drawing a blank on anything else to shorten. Any ideas?

The World Assembly
Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex
Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,
and
Declares;
1. For the purpose of this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the intention of psychologically harming a child
a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive at least basic medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused
b) Where the family or guardians of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them
c) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

2. For the purpose of this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a person defined a child by this resolution, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question
a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child who is under their home nation’s age of consent
b) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal.
c) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used by law enforcement agencies or for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities
d) Knowing involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal
e) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

3. Where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have fled over national borders to another W.A. nation,
a) Member states must cooperate in investigation and apprehension of the accused by providing information, including, but not limited to, all materials involved in charging those accused
b) Where no such treaty exists, member states may request extradition of those charged with child abuse under the terms of this resolution. Member states may refuse such requests, however refusal must be justified on grounds which include but are not limited to (other grounds must be made clear to applicant state/s) concern for the safety or life of the accused, veracity of charges, giving priority to the magnitude of and national interest in other requests and charges against the accused.
c) Applicant state/s have the right to appeal an extradition refusal to the courts and authorities of the state of which they made the request

Co-Authored by Urgench


This fits the character limit. If it meets with your approval, I'll submit to see what support we have.

Collectivity supports this bill, Rutianas and Urgench.

We notice, however, that you had problems with it being overly wordy.
Call me us if you ever need help with that!
(just kidding!)

I thank you. It has just been submitted. The version I thought I had under the limit was, unfortunately, over the limit.

The version that has been submitted is as follows:

The World Assembly
Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex
Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,
and
Declares;
1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the intention of psychologically harming a child
a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, and clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive at least basic medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused
b) Where the family or guardians of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them
c) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

2. For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a person defined a child by this resolution, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question
a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child who is under their home nation’s age of consent
b) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal.
c) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used by law enforcement agencies or for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities
d) Knowing involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal
e) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

3. Where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have fled over national borders to another W.A. nation,
a) Member states must cooperate in investigation and apprehension of the accused by providing information, including, but not limited to, all materials involved in charging those accused
b) Where no such treaty exists, member states may request extradition of those charged with child abuse under the terms of this resolution. Member states may refuse such requests, however refusal must be justified on grounds which include but are not limited to (other grounds must be made clear to applicant state/s) concern for the safety or life of the accused, veracity of charges, giving priority to the magnitude of and national interest in other requests and charges against the accused.
c) Applicant state/s have the right to appeal an extradition refusal to the courts and authorities of the state of which they made the request

Co-Authored by Urgench

"Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse" Perhaps this is better:
"Children have the right to impartial and confidential investigation of instances of probable neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse."

Same numberof words. It is often not the children who make the claims but concerned adults/agencies.
Regards and best wishes,
Collectivity

The government of the Emperor of Urgench is pleased with this form of the resolution and is happy to have assisted the honoured and respected delegacy of Rutianas in achieving what we hope will be a very great step forward in the protection of this oganisation's membership's children.

We wonder if the respected Ambassador can tell us if their government has requisite time and resources to lobby delegates for their approvals?


Yours sincerely,

The government of the Emperor of Urgench is pleased with this form of the resolution and is happy to have assisted the honoured and respected delegacy of Rutianas in achieving what we hope will be a very great step forward in the protection of this oganisation's membership's children.

We wonder if the respected Ambassador can tell us if their government has requisite time and resources to lobby delegates for their approvals?


Yours sincerely,

Unfortunately, we do not at the moment.

OOC: I have two kids that are screaming for attention almost always, so it's little time to be online. Heh. I get on when I can.

"Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse" Perhaps this is better:
"Children have the right to impartial and confidential investigation of instances of probable neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse."

Same numberof words. It is often not the children who make the claims but concerned adults/agencies.
Regards and best wishes,
Collectivity

It's not the number of words that matters, but the number of characters. The second line contains far more characters than the first.

A child has the right to:
a/care, sustenance, shelter, and clothing, sufficient education, adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused
b/impartial and confidential investigation of claims of probable neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

Where the family or guardians of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them

Here's what a bit of retructuring and summarising can do to help. (I'm an English teacher)

I can't figure for the life of me why a proposal that so obviously should be filed under "Human Rights" is instead filed under "Social Justice." Since only one clause falls under Social Justice, the obvious solution would be to take it out which also gives you a little more leeway on the character count.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Good point. Flib. Aren't human rights and social justice pretty much synonymous?

A child has the right to:
a/care, sustenance, shelter, and clothing, sufficient education, adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused
b/impartial and confidential investigation of claims of probable neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

Where the family or guardians of a child cannot for any reason provide these guarantees the state should provide them

Here's what a bit of retructuring and summarising can do to help. (I'm an English teacher)


We are pleased the honoured Ambassador has set their mind to more constructive activity. We would be amenable to this wording being used, however the resolution has been submitted already by the respected Ambassador for Rutianas and therefore is beyond the reach of its drafter's pen, for now that is.

yours e.t.c. ,

We humbly and obsequiouly point our bared buttocks towards the magnificently condescending Urgench Khanate and acknowledge the enormous diplomatic effort that it took to thank the unsophisticated Community of Collectivity.
We wish you well with the resolution and with the protection of the defenceless beings everwhere.
(Mind you, if you've ever taught Year 8s you'd know that the little creatures can be far from defenceless.! I'd back some of them against a killer whale anytime!)

We wish you well with the resolution and with the protection of the defenceless beings everwhere.
(Mind you, if you've ever taught Year 8s you'd know that the little creatures can be far from defenceless.! I'd back some of them against a killer whale anytime!)

Thank you.

OOC: I have two kids, so believe me, I know what you mean.

We are pleased the honoured Ambassador has set their mind to more constructive activity. We would be amenable to this wording being used, however the resolution has been submitted already by the respected Ambassador for Rutianas and therefore is beyond the reach of its drafter's pen, for now that is.

yours e.t.c. ,

It will be on the list of potential changes if need be.

We humbly and obsequiouly point our bared buttocks towards the magnificently condescending Urgench Khanate and acknowledge the enormous diplomatic effort that it took to thank the unsophisticated Community of Collectivity.
We wish you well with the resolution and with the protection of the defenceless beings everwhere.
(Mind you, if you've ever taught Year 8s you'd know that the little creatures can be far from defenceless.! I'd back some of them against a killer whale anytime!)


In fact honoured Ambassador we never thanked you at all, that would have been presumptuous of us since this is strictly the project of the esteemed Ambassador for Rutianas whom we merely assisted.

Doubtless the respected Ambassador for Rutianas will be as gratified as we are with your esteemed Ambasador's felicitous wishes for the success of this resolution however.

yours e.t.c. ,

This is a resolution which covers the protection of the child, if it did not metion what should happen to orphans it would be leaving out large group of vulnerable children, who have as much right to the basics of life as any other child.

If the honoured Ambassador cannot for the life of them figure that out then what do they imagine this statute should have done instead? Ignored orphans for the sake of squeezing this into another category of laws?

yours e.t.c. ,

If you want to protect orphans so much, then perhaps you should remove that one clause and include it in a proposal whose sole purpose is to protect orphans. Or is that too novel a concept (http://www.nationstates.net/65742/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=236)? Basically this all boils down to the old expression, "Write the proposal to match the category." This proposal is 95% human rights, and certainly that one social justice clause doesn't necessitate this being filed as Social Justice, Strong.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

If you want to protect orphans so much, then perhaps you should remove that one clause and include it in a proposal whose sole purpose is to protect orphans. Or is that too novel a concept (http://www.nationstates.net/65742/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=236)? Basically this all boils down to the old expression, "Write the proposal to match the category." This proposal is 95% human rights, and certainly that one social justice clause doesn't necessitate this being filed as Social Justice, Strong.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


As usual the charm with which it is delivered makes your advice all the more welcome, respected Ambassador Flibble.

yours e.t.c. ,

Flib's right. This should have been edited and filed under Human Rights. It doesn't really fit Social Justice, much less SJ:Strong.


Aren't human rights and social justice pretty much synonymous?No, they aren't.

You should explain further o esteemed hack. I suppose that "social justice" is given a more economic perspective as opposed to human rights - which the UN Declaration outlines.

I guess it is not you role to induct new kids on the block but to moderate the sites - but a word of friendly advice. Try to engage a little more warmly. I feel like a pork bun in a Kosher restaurant sometimes.

You should explain further o esteemed hack. I suppose that "social justice" is given a more economic perspective as opposed to human rights - which the UN Declaration outlines.


Considering he wrote an entire thread on rules for WA proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) that is pinned at the top of this very forum, which gives the answer you are seeking (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2), it indicates to me why he'd rather not.

And keep in mind that the UN doesn't exist here, as the UN itself made sure of that (http://maxbarry.com/2008/04/02/news.html), so the author of the game gets to choose meanings of defintions.

Well our position is that if this resolution cannot be submitted under Human Rights because of the offending clause, and in spite of our strong concern for the fate of orphaned children, that the clause should be expunged and the resolution resubmitted as a human rights resolution.

It is our hope that the list of entitlements of children will suffice to protect all children, orphaned or not from, neglect.

yours e.t.c. ,

I feel like a pork bun in a Kosher restaurant sometimes.
Perhaps you should leave, then.

'State/s' is not a construction I recognise. I presume it's meant to refer to 'one or more states', but why not simply use 'states'? That's perfectly grammatically correct and avoids any confusion.

And, if you have a few characters spare: http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad8hi.png

Perhaps you should leave, then.

'State/s' is not a construction I recognise. I presume it's meant to refer to 'one or more states', but why not simply use 'states'? That's perfectly grammatically correct and avoids any confusion.

And, if you have a few characters spare: http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad8hi.png


Of course the esteemed and venerable Ambassador for the Quitessence of Dust is absolutely right as ever, "states" would be a perfect replacement for "state/s" for "one or more staes" but it was meant to be a contraction of "state or states" hence the usage.

yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps you should leave, then.

'State/s' is not a construction I recognise. I presume it's meant to refer to 'one or more states', but why not simply use 'states'? That's perfectly grammatically correct and avoids any confusion.

And, if you have a few characters spare: http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad8hi.png

I think I'll take you up on your advice Quintessence.
There is far too much "Love it our leave it" in the World Assembly region which has probably been infilitrated by Aliens with some condition remakably like Asperger's Syndrome that renders the power-crazed despots insensitive to anyone's feelings but their own.
The unfriendliness from many people omn this site is not very healthy. You might want to take that criticism on board and do something about it but from the immaturity and self-importance I've witnessed from the wanna be legislators - that just ain't gonna happen. I'm going back to the real world.
Have fun boys and girls.

Long live the revolution!

"When the last politician has been strangled with the guts of the last bureaucrat - only then will we be truly happy."

I think I'll take you up on your advice Quintessence.
There is far too much "Love it our leave it" in the World Assembly region which has probably been infilitrated by Aliens with some condition remakably like Asperger's Syndrome that renders the power-crazed despots insensitive to anyone's feelings but their own.
The unfriendliness from many people omn this site is not very healthy. You might want to take that criticism on board and do something about it but from the immaturity and self-importance I've witnessed from the wanna be legislators - that just ain't gonna happen. I'm going back to the real world.
Have fun boys and girls.

Long live the revolution!

"When the last politician has been strangled with the guts of the last bureaucrat - only then will we be truly happy."


Well it was charming to make your acquaintance Ambassador.

yours e.t.c.,

Well our position is that if this resolution cannot be submitted under Human Rights because of the offending clause, and in spite of our strong concern for the fate of orphaned children, that the clause should be expunged and the resolution resubmitted as a human rights resolution.

It is our hope that the list of entitlements of children will suffice to protect all children, orphaned or not from, neglect.

yours e.t.c. ,

Agreed. We can always write something afterwards that protects orphaned children. One step at a time.

Agreed. We can always write something afterwards that protects orphaned children. One step at a time.



Indeed we may take what inspiration we may from the work the honoured and esteemed Ambassador Flibble refered us to earlier in this thread.

yours e.t.c. ,

Good point. Flib. Aren't human rights and social justice pretty much synonymous?
Human Rights involves the equal distribution of choice...it boils down protecting the right to self-determination for each human (usually protecting him from the government making decisions for him). This is to make, again, choice justly distributed among everyone.

Social Justice involves the equal distribution of things...it boils down to taking from the "haves" and giving their things to the "have nots" (typically through the agency of government). This is to make, again, things justly distributed among everyone.

I've updated the proposal and resubmitted it under Human Rights. The social justice clause has been removed. If this one gets passed, I intend on writing another to deal specifically with children that are being raised by the state under Social Justice.

The draft on the first page has been updated to reflect what was submitted.

I've updated the proposal and resubmitted it under Human Rights. The social justice clause has been removed. If this one gets passed, I intend on writing another to deal specifically with children that are being raised by the state under Social Justice.

The draft on the first page has been updated to reflect what was submitted.


We commend the honoured Ambassador for their continued commitment to this issue and ernestly hope for the success of this resolution. As a matter of interest how many approvals did it achieve?

yours sincerely,

We commend the honoured Ambassador for their continued commitment to this issue and ernestly hope for the success of this resolution. As a matter of interest how many approvals did it achieve?

yours sincerely,

We had received 49 approvals at my last check last night. About half of what we need for quorum.

Greetings Honoured Assembly Members and My apologies in advance if I raise any issues already dealt with in the preceding pages of this thread. As it is now quite lengthy I will comment on the draft as percieved by the people of my nation.
The World Assembly
Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
I am afraid I don't get how something can be "international by nature"

Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex
I am afraid we see this as a possible loophole in the resolution thus negating it. I am all for protecting innocents but one nation could have laws defined by the state that allow for what another state would perceive as nothing short of abuse by that nations standards. It is an inequitable loophole allowing for some states to get away with what another state would deem child abuse and simply because it was sanctioned by a government?

Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,See loophole comments above

and
Declares;
1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm where the intention is to cause harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the intention of psychologically harming a child
The only issue I have with this is that abuse, intentional or not is still abuse. I would like to see accidental abuse get the same treatment as intentional.

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

2. For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a person defined a child by this resolution, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child who is under their home nation’s age of consent
Repetition - If you define what abuse is or that it is defined by a nations agreed age of consent there is no need to state the same thing in every paragraph

b) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal.No problem here.

c) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used by law enforcement agencies or for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authoritiesAnother possible loop hole for a less than honest member state. I believe this statement is inserted in order to allow for the successful prosecution of any abuses and the wording should probably be rewritten? Or maybe I am being a little picky here?

d) Knowing involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegalThe problem I have with this is it leaves a grey area in the Law. "I didnt know he was 12? he looked the legal age of 14? Abuse is abuse regardless of intent and instead perhaps a clause added to give a judge/judiciary an element of leniency in sentencing would be better? EG You have abused however we recognise that you may have done so inadvertantly so we can be lenient however the crime cant go unpunished if you are to standardise it as a crime.

e) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case
No Problem

3. Where those accused of child abuse reside in another nation than that which has charged them or have fled over national borders to another W.A. nation,

a) Member states must cooperate in investigation and apprehension of the accused by providing information, including, but not limited to, all materials involved in charging those accused

b) Where no such treaty exists, member states may request extradition of those charged with child abuse under the terms of this resolution. Member states may refuse such requests, however refusal must be justified on grounds which include but are not limited to (other grounds must be made clear to applicant state/s) concern for the safety or life of the accused, veracity of charges, giving priority to the magnitude of and national interest in other requests and charges against the accused.I am against having additions that could be covered in a single legislative piece added to other pieces of legislation. As such I suggest you leave out any extradition references and leave that for another bill that deals specifically with extradition procedings for member states. The Extradition piece you have included will only add another layer of complexity to what is already a complex piece of legislation.

c) Applicant state/s have the right to appeal an extradition refusal to the courts and authorities of the state of which they made the requestAgain leave for a separate World Assembly Resolution covering agreed processes for extradition between member states.

Co-Authored by Urgench Hi Urgench :P

Greetings Honoured Assembly Members and My apologies in advance if I raise any issues already dealt with in the preceding pages of this thread. As it is now quite lengthy I will comment on the draft as percieved by the people of my nation.

I am afraid I don't get how something can be "international by nature"


I am afraid we see this as a possible loophole in the resolution thus negating it. I am all for protecting innocents but one nation could have laws defined by the state that allow for what another state would perceive as nothing short of abuse by that nations standards. It is an inequitable loophole allowing for some states to get away with what another state would deem child abuse and simply because it was sanctioned by a government?

See loophole comments above


The only issue I have with this is that abuse, intentional or not is still abuse. I would like to see accidental abuse get the same treatment as intentional.




Repetition - If you define what abuse is or that it is defined by a nations agreed age of consent there is no need to state the same thing in every paragraph

No problem here.

Another possible loop hole for a less than honest member state. I believe this statement is inserted in order to allow for the successful prosecution of any abuses and the wording should probably be rewritten? Or maybe I am being a little picky here?

The problem I have with this is it leaves a grey area in the Law. "I didnt know he was 12? he looked the legal age of 14? Abuse is abuse regardless of intent and instead perhaps a clause added to give a judge/judiciary an element of leniency in sentencing would be better? EG You have abused however we recognise that you may have done so inadvertantly so we can be lenient however the crime cant go unpunished if you are to standardise it as a crime.

No Problem

I am against having additions that could be covered in a single legislative piece added to other pieces of legislation. As such I suggest you leave out any extradition references and leave that for another bill that deals specifically with extradition procedings for member states. The Extradition piece you have included will only add another layer of complexity to what is already a complex piece of legislation.

Again leave for a separate World Assembly Resolution covering agreed processes for extradition between member states.

Hi Urgench :P



Hello honoured Ambassador, it is a relief to see a friendly face in these halls. May the horde of Venerable Libertarians ride swift across the plain for all time.

We are glad the honoured Ambassador has offered their advice on this resolution. We are beggining to think that it was a mistake to accept the honour of co-authorship offered to us by the honoured delegacy of Rutianas, our intent was only ever to help the respected Ambassador for Rutianas to frame their resolution in a more recognisably legal form of words. We fear we may have been more of a hindrance than a help however.

We are aware that there are reserves of experience in drafting resolutions which the respected delegacy for Rutianas should be taking advantage of. We seemingly do not have the requisite experience.

And in a w.a. where the framing of resolutions in anything other than a specific manner which places more onus on the rights of nations than of individuals is to court nothing but opposition and in some cases animus, we suspect that so vital a resolution as one dealing with the welfare of infants would be far better off not being associated with our delegacy, being as it is deeply animated by the causes of personal human freedom and not the fragile dignity of states.

We feel our point of view will no longer assist the honoured Ambassador for Rutianas, and that for the furtherance of their aims which we share we should let others assist them.

We cannot stress enough our nation's goodwill toward the honoured Ambassador for Rutianas and our continued support of their work in this area. We thank them for their nations very great gesture of thanks in naming us co-author and we recommend them to the services of others of the respected Ambassadors who have helped in drafting this resolution,doubtless more substantially than we.


May the horde of Rutianas ride swift and ever to its banner for all time.


Yours with regret,

Greetings Honoured Assembly Members and My apologies in advance if I raise any issues already dealt with in the preceding pages of this thread. As it is now quite lengthy I will comment on the draft as percieved by the people of my nation.

I am afraid I don't get how something can be "international by nature"

With the character limit, I could not explain fully, but kidnapping a child from one nation and forcibly taking them to another where the child would be considered an adult would clearly be international in nature to Rutianas. We certainly would not want our children being taken to another nation where they are no longer considered a child.


I am afraid we see this as a possible loophole in the resolution thus negating it. I am all for protecting innocents but one nation could have laws defined by the state that allow for what another state would perceive as nothing short of abuse by that nations standards. It is an inequitable loophole allowing for some states to get away with what another state would deem child abuse and simply because it was sanctioned by a government?

See loophole comments above

There is no way to set ages that cover all nations, thus leaving the ages of majority and consent to individual nations to determine is the best option for dealing with this.


The only issue I have with this is that abuse, intentional or not is still abuse. I would like to see accidental abuse get the same treatment as intentional.

If this version of the proposal fails to reach quorum, I will alter the wording so that accidental abuse falls under the same spectrum.

Repetition - If you define what abuse is or that it is defined by a nations agreed age of consent there is no need to state the same thing in every paragraph

Thank you for pointing that out. I attempted to remove all repetition, but missed some in editing. Again, if the proposal fails to reach quorum, I will alter it.

Another possible loop hole for a less than honest member state. I believe this statement is inserted in order to allow for the successful prosecution of any abuses and the wording should probably be rewritten? Or maybe I am being a little picky here?

Would you care to offer wording that would work for your nation? I tossed it in because sometimes there are medical reasons to review such materials in order to teach medical students how to recognize that a child has been sexually abused. It is meant for protection against abusing the medical & research rights.

The problem I have with this is it leaves a grey area in the Law. "I didnt know he was 12? he looked the legal age of 14? Abuse is abuse regardless of intent and instead perhaps a clause added to give a judge/judiciary an element of leniency in sentencing would be better? EG You have abused however we recognise that you may have done so inadvertantly so we can be lenient however the crime cant go unpunished if you are to standardise it as a crime.

I see what you mean. I will alter if I need to rewrite.

I am against having additions that could be covered in a single legislative piece added to other pieces of legislation. As such I suggest you leave out any extradition references and leave that for another bill that deals specifically with extradition procedings for member states. The Extradition piece you have included will only add another layer of complexity to what is already a complex piece of legislation.

The Extradition bit was added because the World Assembly has no extradition legislation. For now, it is up to each individual state. Urgench offered the suggestion and I felt it was a good idea to have it standardized sd that perpetrators could not flee to a country where no extradition treaty is in place and be safe from prosecution.

I am grateful for your comments and I will definitely keep them in mind should a rewrite be necessary.

We are glad the honoured Ambassador has offered their advice on this resolution. We are beggining to think that it was a mistake to accept the honour of co-authorship offered to us by the honoured delegacy of Rutianas, our intent was only ever to help the respected Ambassador for Rutianas to frame their resolution in a more recognisably legal form of words. We fear we may have been more of a hindrance than a help however.

We are aware that there are reserves of experience in drafting resolutions which the respected delegacy for Rutianas should be taking advantage of. We seemingly do not have the requisite experience.

And in a w.a. where the framing of resolutions in anything other than a specific manner which places more onus on the rights of nations than of individuals is to court nothing but opposition and in some cases animus, we suspect that so vital a resolution as one dealing with the welfare of infants would be far better off not being associated with our delegacy, being as it is deeply animated by the causes of personal human freedom and not the fragile dignity of states.

We feel our point of view will no longer assist the honoured Ambassador for Rutianas, and that for the furtherance of their aims which we share we should let others assist them.

We cannot stress enough our nation's goodwill toward the honoured Ambassador for Rutianas and our continued support of their work in this area. We thank them for their nations very great gesture of thanks in naming us co-author and we recommend them to the services of others of the respected Ambassadors who have helped in drafting this resolution,doubtless more substantially than we.


You've been far more help than you realize. If you'd prefer not to be listed as co-author, I can remove that from the next draft, but again, we do not like taking sole credit for something that someone else has offered so much on.

I will leave that choice to you.

You've been far more help than you realize. If you'd prefer not to be listed as co-author, I can remove that from the next draft, but again, we do not like taking sole credit for something that someone else has offered so much on.

I will leave that choice to you.


We are happy in the knowledge that we may have helped even if only in a small way. We will be more than rewarded should your delegacy succeed in achieving their goal. Please feel free to contact us through tg if you should wish our advice or any favour we can offer you.

yours e.t.c. ,

I have reworded the Child Protection Act based on suggestions that others have given. It has been edited and is in the new form. If there are any comments on it, it would be appreciated. I will likely resubmit it sometime tomorrow or the next day if there are no comments/suggestions.

The major change stems from the suggestion from Venerable Libertarians to remove article 3. I did so and added a new article 3 to add a new protection for children regarding kidnapping.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,

For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as [...] between an adult and a person defined a child by this resolution [...]

This has two potentially different definitions of "child" in the same sentence. So what's the definition of sexual abuse of a child over the age of consent, if such people exist in a given nation? Using the term "a person defined a child by this resolution" implies that it matters, which I doubt you intended.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but we need to be using the appropriate legal age for the relevant problem, not trying to define "child" globally when we're using it in three almost independent senses in this resolution.

The new clause 3 is interesting. 3a and 3b could vanish with no loss to the resolution -- actually a slightly surer footing in the Human Rights camp, but that's not too important -- but 3 itself has some intriguing implications. If a child isn't being abused, we're saying no one can legally take them away from their parents against their will. Not the government, and not the parents themselves. I think I approve.

This has two potentially different definitions of "child" in the same sentence. So what's the definition of sexual abuse of a child over the age of consent, if such people exist in a given nation? Using the term "a person defined a child by this resolution" implies that it matters, which I doubt you intended.

Oops. I meant to remove the last bit since I'd established a child as under the age of consent there.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but we need to be using the appropriate legal age for the relevant problem, not trying to define "child" globally when we're using it in three almost independent senses in this resolution.

Yes. For articles 1 and 3, it's the 'age of majority'. For article 2, the 'age of consent'. For obvious reasons, I'm not willing to attach a definite age to it because of all the different cultures out there in the WA.

The new clause 3 is interesting. 3a and 3b could vanish with no loss to the resolution -- actually a slightly surer footing in the Human Rights camp, but that's not too important -- but 3 itself has some intriguing implications. If a child isn't being abused, we're saying no one can legally take them away from their parents against their will. Not the government, and not the parents themselves. I think I approve.

It had been suggested to not deal with extraditions in this legislation, so I was able to add that one which I had wanted to add from the beginning (but didn't have space for).

I'll update with the proper corrections.

Yes. For articles 1 and 3, it's the 'age of majority'. For article 2, the 'age of consent'. For obvious reasons, I'm not willing to attach a definite age to it because of all the different cultures out there in the WA.
Strictly no, it's the "appropriate age of majority" and the "appropriate age of consent" respectively, otherwise you're falling straight back into the trap of asserting that each nation only has one of them. Thanks for the clarification of the rest!

Strictly no, it's the "appropriate age of majority" and the "appropriate age of consent" respectively, otherwise you're falling straight back into the trap of asserting that each nation only has one of them. Thanks for the clarification of the rest!

I see what you mean, but in the preamble, age of majority is defined for the resolution as the age in which a child is able to become independent from their parents or guardians. I chose to use the wording 'age of majority' and define it to what age that should mean. Different nations may have multiple ages of majority, but there's usually one accepted age in which the young are able to become independent.

I have submitted the proposal once again to the WA.

Honourable Ambassador,

As the Delegate of Greater Unitera, I given approval on your resubmitted proposal.

Honourable Ambassador,

As the Delegate of Greater Unitera, I given approval on your resubmitted proposal.

Thank you, most esteemed ambassador.

We commend the respected and esteemed Ambassador for Rutianas for their determination, and w recommend they continue in submitting this resolution, we are reliably informed by the esteemed and venerated Ambassador for Mendosia that this method was efficacious to their efforts, despite its time consuming nature.

yours e.t.c. ,

Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,

Eh! Is a child defined as being under the age of consent or the age of majority in this resolution?

MapleLeafss;14032907']Eh! Is a child defined as being under the age of consent or the age of majority in this resolution?

O.O.C. Ok i really hate out of character comments in this forum but....

Are you for real? just read what the words say before you reply, i'm not even going to bother to explain what is meant in the sentence you quote because i suspect you'll decide it says things it doesn't anyway.

U.

We commend the respected and esteemed Ambassador for Rutianas for their determination, and w recommend they continue in submitting this resolution, we are reliably informed by the esteemed and venerated Ambassador for Mendosia that this method was efficacious to their efforts, despite its time consuming nature.

yours e.t.c. ,

Rutianas feels strongly about the protection of children and we intend on continuing until this has been passed. Either written by us or by someone else does not matter. But children everywhere are entitled to these protections.

We will always be greatful to the honorable ambassador for Urgench for the assistance given in the past to see this act submitted time and again.

MapleLeafss;14032907']Eh! Is a child defined as being under the age of consent or the age of majority in this resolution?

Eh? I believe the wording is correct. If the ambassador would read the rest of the proposal it will explain why it is worded that way, as will other comments that have been made in the past during this debate.

But I will explain it anyway. Article 1 clearly states that it is a child under the age of majority, which is defined in the preamble as the age when a child may become independent from his or her parents or guardians.

Article 2 clearly states that it is a child under the age of consent.

Article 3, not stating which, is up to the nation to decide whether they wish consent or majority to be the determiner.

Understanding that many countries have more than one age to consider, there is no one universal age that a child becomes an adult, but many ages. Therefore, it is up to the governments of each nation to decide what ages fit where.

Article 3, not stating which, is up to the nation to decide whether they wish consent or majority to be the determiner.

Thank you for this clarification.

Article 3, not stating which, is up to the nation to decide whether they wish consent or majority to be the determiner.

Um. That's one way of reading it. Another, the one I assumed, was that it applied as long as the child was under either the age of consent or the age of majority or both. Isn't English wonderful :-)

Um. That's one way of reading it. Another, the one I assumed, was that it applied as long as the child was under either the age of consent or the age of majority or both. Isn't English wonderful :-)

Yeah. That's another way, and of course, a nation could abide by that as well.

English is just one messed up language. Too many ways of interpreting things. Sometimes too many words for one single concept. It's a pain. (Though I can't seem explain that to my 6 year old who can't understand why some words are pronounced one way, and others that look like they'd rhyme, are pronounced differently.)

We find this not needed if a nation can establish laws to protect it's people. A nation that needs to single out each group and ensure they are treated equal to another group is failing to protect their full society. If one beats, rapes, kills an 80 year old the crime it the same if that person beaten was 8 years old here.. and the charged criminal is taken into court and tried and if found guilty punished based on the crime done. You kill an 8 year old here we use the same quailty rope and probably even the same tree as we use to hand anyone who kills an 80 year old.

Our young are our future if we do not prepare them then we have no future. Thus here they start at age five learning those basic skills that will make them a suitable citizen of our nation. Those that simply refuse to follow our system to citizenship either leave or become criminals and end in prison.

Those coming into our nation are welcome and expected to follow our laws in regards to being here. They fail to do this and they become criminals and end in prison also.

We have no welfare here for those who want it so outsiders who think so need not come here.

Our prisons are around 73.7% full now but our cemeteries are all full and we now cremate or feed the sharks with unclaimed remains.

Jookie Meaaayea,
Minister of Sensations,
Chief Clown Cavirrian Circus

We find this not needed if a nation can establish laws to protect it's people. A nation that needs to single out each group and ensure they are treated equal to another group is failing to protect their full society. If one beats, rapes, kills and 80 year old the crime it the same if that person beaten was 8 year sold here.. and the charged criminal is taken into court and tried and if found guilty punished based on the crime done. You kill an 8 year old here we use the same quailty rope and probably even the same tree as we use to hand anyone who kills an 80 year old.

Our young are our future if we do not prepare them then we have no future. Thus here they start at age five learning those basic skills that will make them a suitable citizen of our nation. Those that simply refuse to follow our system to citizenship either leave or become criminals and end in prison.

Those coming into our nation are welcome and expected to follow our laws in regards to being here. They fail to do this and the become criminals and end in prison also. We have no welfare here for those who want it so outsiders who think so need not come here.

Our prisons are around 73.7% full now but our cemeteries are all full and we now cremate or feed the sharks with unclaimed remains.

Jookie Meaaayea,
Minister of Sensations,
Chief Clown Cavirrian Circus



Really respected Ambassador is another pointless and frankly distastefull lecture on the criminal justice system of your obviously barbaric nation of any interest or relevance to this debate?

No, honoured Ambassador, it is not.

yours e.t.c ,

Our young are our future if we do not prepare them then we have no future. Thus here they start at age five learning those basic skills that will make them a suitable citizen of our nation. Those that simply refuse to follow our system to citizenship either leave or become criminals and end in prison.



It is good to know that you believe you do protect your children, however, there are nations out there within the World Assembly that may not have such a system as yours and children are being mistreated every day.

I'm left wondering how this all affects a nation who have no statutorily defined age of consent, or age of majority, and instead take into account the requirements and capabilities of each individual. Also, I fail to see how the majority of this resolution belongs at the international level. Admittedly, I'm new at this international intrigue, and am more experienced at taking care of business at home, but couldn't we simply handle this at the national level? I recognize that some nations do not, can not, or will not take care of these problems, but realistically, those nations aren't likely to be WA members in the first place.

Thank you for your time, and I humbly yield the floor.

As the delegate of Corrosia, Fuzznerdees gives its approval to this act.

New Sidhe;14040000']I'm left wondering how this all affects a nation who have no statutorily defined age of consent, or age of majority, and instead take into account the requirements and capabilities of each individual. Also, I fail to see how the majority of this resolution belongs at the international level. Admittedly, I'm new at this international intrigue, and am more experienced at taking care of business at home, but couldn't we simply handle this at the national level? I recognize that some nations do not, can not, or will not take care of these problems, but realistically, those nations aren't likely to be WA members in the first place.

Thank you for your time, and I humbly yield the floor.

If you'll notice, this doesn't ask you to define a single age for every child. It just defines the two ages as the age in which a person is able.... Therefore, if a nation looks at the individual and 'sets an age' based on capabilities, then, provided they are in compliance with the Sexual Privacy Act, I don't see where this will cause them issue.

There are too many children being mistreated in numerous countries. Whether intentionally harmed or not. As to those nations that don't 'take care of these problems' not being in the WA, I assure you, they are. It is why we have some of the Human Rights resolutions that come up for the vote and pass.

In the legends and fables of the so called "real world" it was the custom of almost all of the mythical "European nations" to set their ages of majority above that of their ages of consent, broadly this meant 16 for consent and 18 for majority. This should in no way be instructive as to how we should frame this resolutions provisions but perhaps it is illuminating.

However, the provisions of article 1 could be specified to apply to a child defined as under the age of majority or consent which ever is higher, and the provisions of article 2 could be specified to apply to a child defined as simply under the age of consent.

We are sure it will not be too great an imposition on young people for there to be a requirement that their families not physically or emotionally abuse them and supply them with the rudiments of existence if this is beyond their age of consent.

yours e.t.c.,

This is exactly what I was going to complain about in the child protection law. Nations can abuse it by saying a certain age is the right age for consent age and majority. True, that most people have an idea what the age of consent and majority is. i.e. 16 and 21. But a nation that is willing to exploit children for profit could easily work around those ages by lowering the ages of consent and majority. I'd rather have a firm grasp of what the age is for consent and majority. This proposal does not have it and therefore unless it's modified I will not vote for it.

We would vote for it. While we find it true that the ages can be exploited, the problem with setting an age itself is one that varies from culture to culture and, should we ever meet sentient beings who are not human, would naturally vary from species to species due to the very nature of how each species might mature. We cannot, in good conscience, support a resolution that defines specific ages when those ages might be well into old age or in the middle of infanthood for future members of this organization.

And, while we do not believe that any nation really part of this organization would abuse their children as a practice of custom, we also have to admit that individual perversities may still come into play. As such, and with full intention of implementing this with both the letter and spirit of it intact, we would gladly vote in favor of it.

Diplomat Xen Felgras, who is enjoying his late nametag and a thesaurus.

The Child Protection Act has reached Quorum. Thank you to everyone who approved it.

We would vote for it. While we find it true that the ages can be exploited, the problem with setting an age itself is one that varies from culture to culture and, should we ever meet sentient beings who are not human, would naturally vary from species to species due to the very nature of how each species might mature. We cannot, in good conscience, support a resolution that defines specific ages when those ages might be well into old age or in the middle of infanthood for future members of this organization.

Precisely. There's no way to put in wording that will define an age other than allowing each nation to set their own ages as they see fit.

And, while we do not believe that any nation really part of this organization would abuse their children as a practice of custom, we also have to admit that individual perversities may still come into play. As such, and with full intention of implementing this with both the letter and spirit of it intact, we would gladly vote in favor of it.

I would certainly hope there's no nation that abuses children as custom. I'm aware that even with this, some children will slip through the cracks, so to speak, but it at least sets a standard that children have rights just as adults do. Even in nations where children may be seen as possessions instead of people.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the esteemed and venerated Delegacy for their success. We are delighted that your efforts and persistance have been rewarded.

May the horde of Rutianas ride swift across the plain for all time.

yours sincerely,

The resolution is now up for the vote.

I'd rather have a firm grasp of what the age is for consent and majority. This proposal does not have it and therefore unless it's modified I will not vote for it.

I would rather not, and in a very brash manor; I would say my nation will make my own age of consent, and of majority - If you wish for the WA to give you one make a post and ask.

I will not give my approval to this (and not that it needs it), due to my region being split on it. I don't even know if I will be able to cast a vote on this issue as; as many are for as are against.

Wencee~

Might we suggest that the honoured Ambassador for Rutianas either turn this thread into the official topic for their resolution or start a new one for the same purpose, with the draft at vote in it?

yours e.t.c. ,

Until an official thread is begun I shall post my comments here.

Under it's current draft, I am voting NO and recomending my region vote no as well, for the following reasons:

Nutshell: "Happy, Happy-Joy,Joy" article with "protect the children!!!!" screaming out of it. MOST people will not even read the article and will simply vote for it.

That said, the following items may cause thinkers to vote no:

"1a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused "

First 3 parts are reasonable. Part 4~Mandated education could be twisted to force the nation to provide free college to all. Part 5~Could be twisted to force a Nation to provide universal health coverage for "children"(Very loose definition on them btw). And the crux of the article Part 6~ this is the definition provided: "For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child."

Nowhere in the article are either physical harm or psychological harm defined. This leaves parents in a HUGE bind. All the goody-goods of the WA will read this, automatically imagine worst case scenarios and vote to approve this. Sadly, with no definition included, this mandate could apply to lowest end situations as well if a zealous enforcer interpreted it that way. See your little child reaching for a hot stove and quickly slap their hand away? Physical Harm. Tell your Pre-tean that "No, you cannot have the new music cd everyone is getting"? Psychological harm. Mandate your teen mow the lawn as a household chore? Physical and Psychological harm.

This is , yet AGAIN, a well meaning but flawed article. I Suggest NO votes; I also put forth that perhaps this style of legislation belongs within each member state and not on the WA stage...

How surprising, the honoured Ambassador for Amur Panthera Tigris objects to a resolution, goodness what next?


It is also a matter of supreme mystery that the honoured Ambassador does not seem to understand basic english.

Slapping a child's hand to prevent them from burning themselves would hardly be intended to cause harm since its intent was exactly the opposite and therefore it would be completely legal post the passage of this resolution, any other reading is ludicrous. The same applies to denying a teenager every request of their whim. More importantly any sane national court would completely concur in this reading.

As for tertiary education becoming mandatory after this resolution, that is a misreading, if a child has an entitlement to education and if a nation's age of majority is so high as to encompass semi-adults then it would hardly be unfair to ask it to educate those of its citizens it still considers minors unable to live independantly would it?

yours e.t.c. ,

Sarcastic vehemence is oft the sign of someone merely expressing an opinion they hope is right...

How exactly would it be "completely legal" to slap a child's hand? The article in question provides zero justifications for breaking the laws it seeks to set in place on this topic, and by it's definition (setting zero minimums), would "cause physical harm". The poor pre-teen not getting the latest cd could easily be adjudged as having been made to suffer "phychological harm" by it's definition. In both cases, all that would be needed would be "helpful" medical/pychological doctors to testify that "Yes, lil Johnny did suffer a slight bruise to his hand" or "Yes, little Jenny did suffer emotional distress, and even cried because of it!". After that was provided, all that would be needed would be a legal system enforcing the letter of international law. (Why again is this an International issue?)

Belief that, "That would never happen!" is simply naive at best; at worst they are criminally foolhardy in trusting the legal system to always do what's right.

Do I find the possible use of the legislation in this manner would be wholly innappropriate? Yes... hence my objection to it.

On the topic of education, again, definitions are key to good legislation. Failure to set specific guidelines as to the "education" provided is another downfall. The two extremes here could be the nation in question providing a dictionary to each household with mandate that they be read a new word and it's definition each day of their minority. Polar opposite in a nation of quality education, what would prevent focused parents from driving their children rapidly through grade levels past their social development, mearly to get a "free" college education for them prior to their majority? (On the government's tab)

Nothing in this would prevent either. Posturing, posing and trolling in commentary will not change the fact that this is a flawed bill and should be voted against.

We are bemused at the honoured Ambassador's distinct lack of legislative comprehension.

This resolution does not restrict actions which are not intended to harm, it only prevents actions who's soul purpose is to harm. It could not be simpler.

If the judiciary of Amur Panthera Tigris is so foolhardy and the government so contrary that they desire to misinterpret this resolution to their own detriment that is their own concern and hardly the basis for a call for others to vote against what is in fact a decent resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,


O.O.C. this isn't an invitation to an ooc conversation but i should say that this is an r.p. forum and accusing Mongkha of Trolling is silly, and frankly the debating style so favoured by the habitue of General is out of place here and ugly and lacking in imagination. U.

I notice this resolution does not advise on the legality of sexual intimacy between children which has been recorded/staged for malicious intent and feel a revision is in order.

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pasific, takes the floor:

"Comrades of the World Assembly,

I have conferred with the United Socialist State Senate, and though we quabbled over some of the wording (some of which seemed confusing to a few of the senators), we have agreed to vote FOR this resolution. We have a saying in Nadejda, the village where I was born, that goes, "Нация рассужена как она обрабатывает своих самых слабых граждан." Roughly translated, it means that you can tell how great a nation is by how it treats its children.

Though the main purpose of this proposal, it seems, is to protect children from sexual abuse, I am glad to also see section 1.a. Under Soviet rule, though sexual abuse was rare, I saw many children deprived of their basic needs in the name of "making them stronger." It was, frankly, obscene.

Under this proposal, these abuses would not happen as policy. Though, as one of my esteemed comrades said earlier, children will fall through the cracks, as an international community, we can condemn these actions and set an example for the rest of the world.

The USSJ votes FOR."

"1a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused "

First 3 parts are reasonable. Part 4~Mandated education could be twisted to force the nation to provide free college to all.
You're entirely welcome to twist it that way in your nation, since the wording allows you to do so. You aren't, however, entitled to twist, bend, fold, mutilate or spindle interpretations for any other nation, since the wording also allows for other possibilities. Therefore, only those nations which want to provide free college to all are in any danger of forcing themselves to provide free college to all.

Part 5~Could be twisted to force a Nation to provide universal health coverage for "children"(Very loose definition on them btw).
Again, only if the nation in question decided to interpret it that way.

And the crux of the article Part 6~ this is the definition provided: "For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child."

Nowhere in the article are either physical harm or psychological harm defined. This leaves parents in a HUGE bind. All the goody-goods of the WA will read this, automatically imagine worst case scenarios and vote to approve this. Sadly, with no definition included, this mandate could apply to lowest end situations as well if a zealous enforcer interpreted it that way. See your little child reaching for a hot stove and quickly slap their hand away? Physical Harm. Tell your Pre-tean that "No, you cannot have the new music cd everyone is getting"? Psychological harm. Mandate your teen mow the lawn as a household chore? Physical and Psychological harm.
If your legislature decides to interpret "physical and psychological harm" like that, then they're being stupid.

I notice this resolution does not advise on the legality of sexual intimacy between children which has been recorded/staged for malicious intent and feel a revision is in order.

I'd rather not, myself. Currently it's the loophole that stops the sexual kink of your choice being automatically pedophilia if your government picks its ages of consent right :-)

First 3 parts are reasonable. Part 4~Mandated education could be twisted to force the nation to provide free college to all. Part 5~Could be twisted to force a Nation to provide universal health coverage for "children"(Very loose definition on them btw). And the crux of the article Part 6~ this is the definition provided:

I really don’t understand where you are getting this argument from. In the first place there really is no definition as to who is responsible for the rights of the children. You may assume it is the “government” but it could just as easily be considered the “parent or guardian.” Secondly there is an important definition in the resolution: the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians. Generally speaking, college, which often occurs within a campus environment, is a condition where the person becomes independent from parents or guardians. Therefore the notion that this resolution supports government paid college is nonsense.

Nowhere in the article are either physical harm or psychological harm defined. This leaves parents in a HUGE bind.

That’s a good point. The perfect being the enemy of the good and the curse of the word count would probably prohibit a logical definition; common sense must apply. I googled a following loose definition used somewhere in law: The term “physical harm” as used in the Act and this part means any physical injury to the body, including an injury that caused, either temporarily or permanently, partial or total physical disability, incapacity or disfigurement. (This was included in a law on homeland security.)

More over any court of law would have to apply the principle of double effect and the principle of gross negligence. That is to say that even if a slap on the hand was considered “physical harm” (such a slap should not cause “injury” per se) it is clearly less than the resulting burns by the application of a child’s hand on a hot stove, and this could be considered physical harm through omission.

I will vote yes on this issue because I belive it to be a good proposal. I encourage my fellows to vote likewise.

Without a definition of a child, I am forced to vote against this act.

Without a definition of a child, I am forced to vote against this act.

Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,

Does this mean that parents do not have the right to punish their children by spanking?

The vagueness of this act might give you pause. I like the autonomy it gives to states to determine age of consent and sentences. What I don't like is that it fails to define what is or is not physical harm, emotional harm, and sexual abuse of a minor.

Acts that lead to harm are intentional and unintentional and there are omissions that lead to harm. I recall the old Saturday Night Live skit about the toy manufacturer selling a bag of broken glass for kids to play with. What about sins of omission? If you fail to supervise a child adequately (what is adequate?) and they play with a broken glass they found and end up needing stitches, is that illegal under the act? What if you broke the glass and were too lazy to pick it up? What if you broke the glass unintentionally and asked your child to clean it up?

What if a kid breaks a glass and tries to clean it up to conceal their mistake because their parents beat them senseless for the slightest mistakes and as a result the kid needs stitches?

What if you undercook the food and your kid gets food poisoning? What if you buy cooked food and your kid gets food poisoning? Will the restaurant be charged with child abuse?

It's always been universally popular to outlaw child abuse: you'd have to be a creep to vote for it. But I say you have to define it specifically. Unless every state defines age of consent as age of puberty, this bill contains another painfully undefined area: sexual abuse of a minor. The phrase "adults or others" appears to imply consensual acts between minors. There is a certain amount of "show me what you got and I'll show you what I got" little kids engage in that's not abusive. When and how you draw the line and characterize conduct as predatory and harmful is essential to enforcing laws to protect children. It's not good enough to say icky, bad, we'll know it when we see it.

Unfortunately, I will have to vote no because I do not know what I am voting for. This act does not adequately protect children because it will create an endless wild goose chase by law enforcement following up every injury to a minor reported to them, and does not encourage or protect in any way anyone who reports child abuse to them. Regular police are notoriously lousy child abuse investigators and these cases have been assigned to specially trained forensic investigators for years for the protection of victims, winesses, the accused, and in the interest of justice. This act assumes we should simply trust the constables on patrol to handle to abuse of children.

I say that won't protect kids. I will vote no.
.......
High Counselor Eustace
People's Republic of Monkeys in Helmets

Think this through. Investigators must have special training and guidelines to protect victims from allowing the investigation and justice system from causing them psychological harm, which is exactly what this bill proports to outlaw, yet it would cause by not putting in place those safeguards. Under this bill, there is nothing to stop a nation from forcing small children from being subject to the cross examination by shark attorneys and having to face their abuser in open court in front of a jury. Jury trials, open court, cross examination of minors, and live testimony of children are all banned where I am IRL because there is a mountain of research indicating that those experiences retraumatizes them, causes them to change their stories and therefore harms justice because it allows predators to walk, and otherwise creates new psychological wounds for children and their families. It isn't enough to arrest bad guys, you have to protect victims and get the bads guys locked up while doing so. The justice system starts when the arrest ends and this act ignores the nuts and bolts of the most import part of child protection: keeping child predators away from children. Cops don't do that. Courts do.

Oh. Didn't see that one coming. Well one ought to think about such things when one writes laws that get people arrested. Because one wants to protect their victims.

You won't have to show me the door. If I am subject to an incredibly stupid law that endangers children under the guise of protecting them, the WA will simply have to do without my nation.

Does this mean that parents do not have the right to punish their children by spanking?


No, respected Ambassador, this resolution does not decree that parents cannot punish their children, merely that they may not punish them purely for the purpose of harming them. If a punishment is intended to improve a child's understanding or behaviour with the intent of improving the life of the child or alternatively if this punishment is to prevent a child from harming itself or others then it would be perfectly legal under this resolution.


yours e.t.c.,

The vagueness of this act might give you pause. I like the autonomy it gives to states to determine age of consent and sentences. What I don't like is that it fails to define what is or is not physical harm, emotional harm, and sexual abuse of a minor.

We find that sexual abuse has already, to some extent, been defined by the WA. The rest of it, we believe, is easily defined by looking at other laws already passed.

Acts that lead to harm are intentional and unintentional and there are omissions that lead to harm. I recall the old Saturday Night Live skit about the toy manufacturer selling a bag of broken glass for kids to play with. What about sins of omission? If you fail to supervise a child adequately (what is adequate?) and they play with a broken glass they found and end up needing stitches, is that illegal under the act? What if you broke the glass and were too lazy to pick it up? What if you broke the glass unintentionally and asked your child to clean it up?

What if a kid breaks a glass and tries to clean it up to conceal their mistake because their parents beat them senseless for the slightest mistakes and as a result the kid needs stitches?

What if you undercook the food and your kid gets food poisoning? What if you buy cooked food and your kid gets food poisoning? Will the restaurant be charged with child abuse?

The playing with broken glass can be dealt with by the parent through education. If you were too lazy to pick up broken glass, then you should get charged anyway. If you asked them to pick it up and they get cut, it wasn't intentional harm and you need to make sure they will be more careful or just do it yourself. And if they clean up their own mess and get a cut, then in the case you presented the parent would have to be charged for the child abuse that led to the behavior. The food issues are also easily dealt with, with undercooked food coming with an admonishment to be more careful when cooking and the restaurant being charged with a crime related to food preparation that they should get charged with anyway.

Each and every item is easily dealt with at the national level. No need to regulate it internationally.

It's always been universally popular to outlaw child abuse: you'd have to be a creep to vote for it. But I say you have to define it specifically. Unless every state defines age of consent as age of puberty, this bill contains another painfully undefined area: sexual abuse of a minor. The phrase "adults or others" appears to imply consensual acts between minors. There is a certain amount of "show me what you got and I'll show you what I got" little kids engage in that's not abusive. When and how you draw the line and characterize conduct as predatory and harmful is essential to enforcing laws to protect children. It's not good enough to say icky, bad, we'll know it when we see it.

The resolution already addresses this.

2. For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a child, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

So, no problem on that regard.

Unfortunately, I will have to vote no because I do not know what I am voting for. This act does not adequately protect children because it will create an endless wild goose chase by law enforcement following up every injury to a minor reported to them, and does not encourage or protect in any way anyone who reports child abuse to them. Regular police are notoriously lousy child abuse investigators and these cases have been assigned to specially trained forensic investigators for years for the protection of victims, winesses, the accused, and in the interest of justice. This act assumes we should simply trust the constables on patrol to handle to abuse of children.

Nothing in this says that it must be those on regular patrol who investigate the reports of child abuse. Nor does it say that every little injury has to be reported to them.

Think this through. Investigators must have special training and guidelines to protect victims from allowing the investigation and justice system from causing them psychological harm, which is exactly what this bill proports to outlaw, yet it would cause by not putting in place those safeguards. Under this bill, there is nothing to stop a nation from forcing small children from being subject to the cross examination by shark attorneys and having to face their abuser in open court in front of a jury. Jury trials, open court, cross examination of minors, and live testimony of children are all banned where I am IRL because there is a mountain of research indicating that those experiences retraumatizes them, causes them to change their stories and therefore harms justice because it allows predators to walk, and otherwise creates new psychological wounds for children and their families. It isn't enough to arrest bad guys, you have to protect victims and get the bads guys locked up while doing so. The justice system starts when the arrest ends and this act ignores the nuts and bolts of the most import part of child protection: keeping child predators away from children. Cops don't do that. Courts do.

Oh. Didn't see that one coming. Well one ought to think about such things when one writes laws that get people arrested. Because one wants to protect their victims.

You won't have to show me the door. If I am subject to an incredibly stupid law that endangers children under the guise of protecting them, the WA will simply have to do without my nation.




In fact honoured Ambassador all the things you outline should exist in national law not in international law.

The purpose of this resolution was simply to prevent the more international symptoms of child exlpoitation and in the process it had to outline certain basic rights and perogatives which children must have. This resolution was not a child welfare bill, which would be the domain of national legislatures and not the w.a.

How this law endangers children is utterly beyond us, if your nation has no extant protections of its children and is relying on the w.a. to provide them then it is grossly negligent.

yours e.t.c. ,

Under this bill, there is nothing to stop a nation from forcing small children from being subject to the cross examination by shark attorneys and having to face their abuser in open court in front of a jury. Jury trials, open court, cross examination of minors, and live testimony of children are all banned where I am IRL because there is a mountain of research indicating that those experiences retraumatizes them, causes them to change their stories and therefore harms justice because it allows predators to walk, and otherwise creates new psychological wounds for children and their families. It isn't enough to arrest bad guys, you have to protect victims and get the bads guys locked up while doing so. The justice system starts when the arrest ends and this act ignores the nuts and bolts of the most import part of child protection: keeping child predators away from children. Cops don't do that. Courts do.

Then it's up to individual nations to make that determination and protect them. However, it does cause a child psychological harm and that would be illegal under this resolution. So, any nation that forces a child to face their abuser in open court would be in non-compliance with this resolution.

Oh. Didn't see that one coming. Well one ought to think about such things when one writes laws that get people arrested. Because one wants to protect their victims.

Actually, I did see that coming, thus the bit on causing psychological harm as well.

"b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse"

Do you think every country can have so much funds to investigate all these POINTLESS crimes or even crimes at all?

The Confederacy of Delicious Flat Chest's military and economy is built on the basis of the utilisation of our young ones, we shall simply not stand for this DISCRIMINATION against our nation.

The Confederacy of Delicious Flat Chests hereby declares that we shall withdraw from this bunch of buffons known as the WA if this ridiculous law passes.

"b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse"

Do you think every country can have so much funds to investigate all these POINTLESS crimes or even crimes at all?

Do you have funds for a military? We use the military to also do police work. It keeps the soldiers out of trouble and keeps the military larger than we would normally be able to field, given our limited resources.

The Confederacy of Delicious Flat Chest's military and economy is built on the basis of the utilisation of our young ones, we shall simply not stand for this DISCRIMINATION against our nation.

The Confederacy of Delicious Flat Chests hereby declares that we shall withdraw from this bunch of buffons known as the WA if this ridiculous law passes.

We fear for your children. And we pray that, some day, your nation realizes the horrible acts it is performing on its own children and manages to find a way to advance your economy to not be reliant upon torturing them so.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

The Confederacy of Delicious Flat Chests hereby declares that we shall withdraw from this bunch of buffons known as the WA if this ridiculous law passes.

Ooo, can I have your stapler? Mine just broke.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

From the Most Holy Empire of Tindrock Isle:
In this resolution at hand there is a lack of definition not for the distinction of ersons older than a child, but for the point at which there is a child. The Most Holy Empire Of Tindrock Isle would argue that this "Child Protection Act" should protect children at all stages of life, beginning at conception. Since the moment of conception is a disputed point, the child should be protected from the earliest possible moment, that being when the embryo is first in the womb. This Act should ban any destuction or harm to the aforementioned child, including abortion and contraceptives. This cannot be a "Child Protection Act" without these.

With the most humble regards,
The Holy Empire of Tindrock Isle

The Confederacy of Delicious Flat Chests hereby declares that we shall withdraw from this bunch of buffons known as the WA if this ridiculous law passes.

Is it too early to snag his office? i've got alot of paperwork coming now....

Sara Mavenu
UN Rep for Mavenu

Fellow ambassadors and delegates it is with great regret that we are considering voting against this resolution. As is so often the case we agree in principle, but some of the clauses cause us great problems.

Our first concern if the definition of child. I know this is an issue that has been much discussed. We agree with all of clause 2 regarding sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent. The problem is that in the Republic of Macwick children leave school at 15 and go out to work. They can provide there own sustenance, shelter, clothing and are no longer educated. If the age of consent had been used we would have been very happy with clause 1. We note that a suggested text was:


Defining a child as being under the age of consent or majority, unless the age of consent is greater, ….


I suppose you could have had “Defining a child as being either under the age of consent or majority of their nation of citizenship as each nation so decides.”

We note that a similar point was made by Avarahn.

Maybe my nation should just reduce the age of majority to 15 or create a new definition of majority to fit the resolution at 15?

Now we must turn to clause 3


3. A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated.


Why must a child be removed from their parents or guardians if a non parent or guardian has committed the physical abuse or the emotional abuse or the sexual abuse? I am not saying that the child must stay, just that both staying and removing should be options. Maybe I have read it wrong! Please can someone just clarify it.

Yours

The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

Macwick;14053303']Our first concern if the definition of child. I know this is an issue that has been much discussed. We agree with all of clause 2 regarding sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent. The problem is that in the Republic of Macwick children leave school at 15 and go out to work. They can provide there own sustenance, shelter, clothing and are no longer educated. If the age of consent had been used we would have been very happy with clause 1.

Maybe my nation should just reduce the age of majority to 15 or create a new definition of majority to fit the resolution at 15?

If both consent and majority are the same age, then there's no real issue here. You shouldn't have to define an age of majority for your own nation. It's just the wording in the resolution to define the cut-off point. If a nation wants to protect them past that point, then there's nothing to stop them from doing so.

From what I understand, 15 is the age when a child becomes independent, so that is where the cut-off would be for your nation. Am I correct in that understanding?


Why must a child be removed from their parents or guardians if a non parent or guardian has committed the physical abuse or the emotional abuse or the sexual abuse? I am not saying that the child must stay, just that both staying and removing should be options. Maybe I have read it wrong! Please can someone just clarify it.

If the parent or guardian has not abused the child, then the child has the right to stay with the parent or guardian. If someone else has abused the child, then the child still has the right to stay with the parent or guardian. It's only if the parent or guardian has abused the child, then the nation must decide what to do about it while protecting the child from the abuse.

Is it too early to snag his office? i've got alot of paperwork coming now....

Sara Mavenu
UN Rep for Mavenu

Have at it. I think his stapler just got claimed. I'm wanting the post-its if there are any though. I go through a ton a week!

From the Most Holy Empire of Tindrock Isle:
In this resolution at hand there is a lack of definition not for the distinction of ersons older than a child, but for the point at which there is a child. The Most Holy Empire Of Tindrock Isle would argue that this "Child Protection Act" should protect children at all stages of life, beginning at conception. Since the moment of conception is a disputed point, the child should be protected from the earliest possible moment, that being when the embryo is first in the womb. This Act should ban any destuction or harm to the aforementioned child, including abortion and contraceptives. This cannot be a "Child Protection Act" without these.

With the most humble regards,
The Holy Empire of Tindrock Isle

In that, we would disagree. While a fetus meets the genetic test for the species of which they are a future member of, we have found that both fetuses and embryos fail tests of sapiency. As such, we cannot authorise their recognition as people and, due to potential detrimental effects they can have, cannot support any resolution which calls for outlawing their destruction as well as being unwilling to ever support anything that bans contraceptives, in part due to the fact we cannot say we will not have to utilize population growth control measures at some later date or in any future colonies we may establish.

The potential problem I see with it is that the definition of a child or minor is specific to each country. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that they take into account the different cultures and laws of each country. However, as we know, with the internet, photos and videos can be posted worldwide in a matter of seconds.

Here are situations I'm thinking of:
Situation 1:
15 year old girl in Country A is filmed doing lude acts. 15 is no longer considered a child in Country A. Video gets passed to Country B where passing videos of this nature would be illegal. This proposal does not seem to address whether or not whoever first passed the video into Country B can have files charged against them.

Situation 2:
15 year old girl in Country A is filmed doing lude acts. 15 is not of legal age and this is against the law. Film gets passed to Country B where 15 is of legal age. Is this girl's rights protected by her home country alone? Or has everyone in Country B who has passed this video around broken the law?

I believe wholeheartedly in the protection of the world's youth. This law, however, has areas of concern when it comes to the prosecution of these crimes. Either the areas above need to be specifically addressed for me to vote for this, or there needs to be a set age of legality when it comes to this issue.

At this time, it is a no vote for me.

i vote for

Sincerely,
Ker
The Repubblic of HippocampusSA

The potential problem I see with it is that the definition of a child or minor is specific to each country. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that they take into account the different cultures and laws of each country. However, as we know, with the internet, photos and videos can be posted worldwide in a matter of seconds.

Here are situations I'm thinking of:
Situation 1:
15 year old girl in Country A is filmed doing lude acts. 15 is no longer considered a child in Country A. Video gets passed to Country B where passing videos of this nature would be illegal. This proposal does not seem to address whether or not whoever first passed the video into Country B can have files charged against them.

Situation 2:
15 year old girl in Country A is filmed doing lude acts. 15 is not of legal age and this is against the law. Film gets passed to Country B where 15 is of legal age. Is this girl's rights protected by her home country alone? Or has everyone in Country B who has passed this video around broken the law?

I believe wholeheartedly in the protection of the world's youth. This law, however, has areas of concern when it comes to the prosecution of these crimes. Either the areas above need to be specifically addressed for me to vote for this, or there needs to be a set age of legality when it comes to this issue.

At this time, it is a no vote for me.



Honoured Ambassador your example of situation 1 is covered by the fact that this resolution bans all possession or dissemination of materials which contain instances of child sexual abuse in all w.a. member states. This applies to situation 2 also where yes the charges of sexual abuse against the child would have to be brought in the childs home nation, but ancilliary charges would also have to be brought against those possessing the recorded materials of this sexual abuse in their nation of residence.

yours e.t.c.,

If both consent and majority are the same age, then there's no real issue here. You shouldn't have to define an age of majority for your own nation. It's just the wording in the resolution to define the cut-off point. If a nation wants to protect them past that point, then there's nothing to stop them from doing so.

From what I understand, 15 is the age when a child becomes independent, so that is where the cut-off would be for your nation. Am I correct in that understanding?


If the parent or guardian has not abused the child, then the child has the right to stay with the parent or guardian. If someone else has abused the child, then the child still has the right to stay with the parent or guardian. It's only if the parent or guardian has abused the child, then the nation must decide what to do about it while protecting the child from the abuse.


We thank the delegate from Rutianas for their comments.

I am sorry we did not make ourselves clear. Our age of consent is 15 and our age of majority is 18, but the majority of our young people start work after leaving school at 15. My objection was to defining these young people as children and giving them the extra protection of clause 1 after they have left school. However the answer would be to either lower the age of majority to 15 or re-name the current age of majority and create a new age of majority at 15. It appears that our objection on this point can be addressed by our own internal laws. The point we were making was that if the earlier version was still there we wouldn’t have this problem.

We must however disagree with your interpretation of clause 3


3. A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated.


The right of the child to remain with their parent or guardian is clearly removed. However, while the right has been removed this does not mean the child has to be removed.

Again it is a drafting issue. I will go back to my government and ask for some more staff. While I have been involved in the debates on the issue at resolution I have been unable to take part in the discussions of draft resolutions.

I would have been happy to support this resolution with enthusiasm if these issues were not in the current version up for vote. However I think I have resolved both issues to my satisfaction that I can reluctantly vote for it and try to persuade WA delegates of the Commonwealth to do the same.

Yours

The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

Macwick;14054864']I am sorry we did not make ourselves clear. Our age of consent is 15 and our age of majority is 18, but the majority of our young people start work after leaving school at 15. My objection was to defining these young people as children and giving them the extra protection of clause 1 after they have left school. However the answer would be to either lower the age of majority to 15 or re-name the current age of majority and create a new age of majority at 15. It appears that our objection on this point can be addressed by our own internal laws. The point we were making was that if the earlier version was still there we wouldn’t have this problem.

Not necessarily. Age of majority is defined in the resolution as the age at which a child can live independently from their parents. If your young are capable at 15 to become independent from their parents, then that would be the age that is used as majority for the resolution. I don't see why you'd have to alter your age of majority.

For example, Rutianas has an age of majority at 12, but that's not the age where a child becomes independent from his/her parents or guardians. That would be at age 16. So, for this resolution, it's age 16 that determines where the cut off is for article 1. Not age 12 since the child is not deemed independent from the parents or guardians.

We must however disagree with your interpretation of clause 3

The right of the child to remain with their parent or guardian is clearly removed. However, while the right has been removed this does not mean the child has to be removed.

Right. It's up to the nation to decide whether to remove a child from abusive parents or guardians. If the nation in question doesn't remove the child, then the child is not being given these rights and is in non-compliance. I would certainly hope that the state wouldn't remove a child from parents or guardians because someone else abused the child. Unless the parents or guardians knew it was happening and didn't report it or something.

I am not feeling entirely honoured by which I perceive is the deflection of serious issues. I am trying to understand what I read. I don't have answers, I have questions.

1. Any parent who by simple omission fails to protect their child from picking up broken glass, resulting in an injury, will be a child abuser?

2. Any restaurant, caterer, not-for-profit bake sale that sells any food that makes any child sick won't just be a public health problem, they will also be a child abuser?

3. Any state that does not by implication (unstated in this act) study the uncited research about the effects of child abuse investigations on victims and enact protections for them, train a cadre of forensic investigators adequate to their population, and set up special courts and prosecutors, is engaging in child abuse? Any state, by omission, that fails to protect children from known child predators, is doing the same? Or may known predators walk the streets? When we know who the predators are, we're not off the hook simply saying abuse is illegal and it's up to us to figure it out. Throw us a bone here. Whatever will we do?

4. Where exactly does WA legislation distinguish between the consensual normative conduct of minors and predatory sexual conduct?

5. Where exactly does WA legislation distinguish between consensual normative conduct of minors on the playground or field of game play and overly aggressive, abusive conduct by peers, coaches and parents that would be considered abusive under this act?

Simple example of "harm" as defined in the act: sport. If a kid is a minor (as defined in your state) playing baseball with same age peers, some over and under the magic age of adulthood, and an adulthood-age pitcher whacks them in the helmet with an purpose pitch knocking them out, is that adult enagaging in child abuse? Will schoolyard baseball umpires become mandated reporters required to call the cops? Will rugby players be arrested for a dangerous tackle that results in an injury?

Wait, there are no manadated reporters, no good Samaritans, no legal protections, no victim protections (except the vague and entirely unsatisfactory implication of "don't abuse them" which we can totally trust police and lawyers to do because they are SO very good at that), no execptions to harm based on inherently risk behavior, no due process, no funding, no banning exportation of your problem to other nations, and nothing at all about protecting children from known predators.

I object. Making child abuse illegal is unarguably good. Leaving exactly what it is and isn't and how laws are enforced entirely up to states' rights will have perverse outcomes that endanger children.

And on the issue of states' rights: what about the nations who are corporate paradises with no government and no prisons? Are you essentially kicking them all out of the WA? As written and interpreted here, you may be. Don't reply that the prisons thing is easily solved by deporting child abusers because that ignores that that the WA is international. Legislation that incentivizes deportation of child predators, which I assert this act may do, could start a WA delegate riot.

I agree that child protection ought to be acknowledged. As written, it scares me and I have heard nothing that will change my vote: no.

I am not feeling entirely honoured by which I perceive is the deflection of serious issues. I am trying to understand what I read. I don't have answers, I have questions.

We will try to provide you with the answer.

1. Any parent who by simple omission fails to protect their child from picking up broken glass, resulting in an injury, will be a child abuser?

It does not say that.

2. Any restaurant, caterer, not-for-profit bake sale that sells any food that makes any child sick won't just be a public health problem, they will also be a child abuser?

It does not say that.

3. Any state that does not by implication (unstated in this act) study the uncited research about the effects of child abuse investigations on victims and enact protections for them, train a cadre of forensic investigators adequate to their population, and set up special courts and prosecutors, is engaging in child abuse? Any state, by omission, that fails to protect children from known child predators, is doing the same? Or may known predators walk the streets? When we know who the predators are, we're not off the hook simply saying abuse is illegal and it's up to us to figure it out. Throw us a bone here. Whatever will we do?

It does not say the nation as a whole is responsible or that any special provisions actually have to be made.

4. Where exactly does WA legislation distinguish between the consensual normative conduct of minors and predatory sexual conduct?

In the definition used for this resolution, in that it is limited to happening only between adults and children.

5. Where exactly does WA legislation distinguish between consensual normative conduct of minors on the playground or field of game play and overly aggressive, abusive conduct by peers, coaches and parents that would be considered abusive under this act?

This resolution relies upon the assumption that common sense is spread among the lawmakers of nations and that they'll use it in interpreting the law. Keep in mind there are length limits that must be considered.

Simple example of "harm" as defined in the act: sport. If a kid is a minor (as defined in your state) playing baseball with same age peers, some over and under the magic age of adulthood, and an adulthood-age pitcher whacks them in the helmet with an purpose pitch knocking them out, is that adult enagaging in child abuse? Will schoolyard baseball umpires become mandated reporters required to call the cops? Will rugby players be arrested for a dangerous tackle that results in an injury?

What does common sense tell you?

Wait, there are no manadated reporters, no good Samaritans, no legal protections, no victim protections (except the vague and entirely unsatisfactory implication of "don't abuse them" which we can totally trust police and lawyers to do because they are SO very good at that), no execptions to harm based on inherently risk behavior, no due process, no funding, no banning exportation of your problem to other nations, and nothing at all about protecting children from known predators.

I object. Making child abuse illegal is unarguably good. Leaving exactly what it is and isn't and how laws are enforced entirely up to states' rights will have perverse outcomes that endanger children.

Unfortunately, you are ultimately left with two choices. One problem is the aforementioned length limits, which prevent the resolution from being long enough to actually cover everything. As such, in the end, any law on the subject the international community passes will end up being something like this. You're either going to have to rely on the fact nations will be making a lot of decisions on this on their own or simply not allow the subject to ever be addressed at all. You must decide which is the lesser evil.

And, no, we cannot pass amendments on it. Against the rules.

And on the issue of states' rights: what about the nations who are corporate paradises with no government and no prisons? Are you essentially kicking them all out of the WA? As written and interpreted here, you may be. Don't reply that the prisons thing is easily solved by deporting child abusers because that ignores that that the WA is international. Legislation that incentivizes deportation of child predators, which I assert this act may do, could start a WA delegate riot.

It's around 20 resolutions too late to realistically worry about corporate paradises ever really getting a strong representation within the WA. This particular one is far from the only one that stomps all over them due to their type of government. They're an ignored, and quiet, minority and I cannot be loud for everyone, no matter how hard I try.

I agree that child protection ought to be acknowledged. As written, it scares me and I have heard nothing that will change my vote: no.

We do not believe you will find anything realistically better than this one that will pass the WA.

I am not feeling entirely honoured by which I perceive is the deflection of serious issues. I am trying to understand what I read. I don't have answers, I have questions.

1. Any parent who by simple omission fails to protect their child from picking up broken glass, resulting in an injury, will be a child abuser?

2. Any restaurant, caterer, not-for-profit bake sale that sells any food that makes any child sick won't just be a public health problem, they will also be a child abuser?

3. Any state that does not by implication (unstated in this act) study the uncited research about the effects of child abuse investigations on victims and enact protections for them, train a cadre of forensic investigators adequate to their population, and set up special courts and prosecutors, is engaging in child abuse? Any state, by omission, that fails to protect children from known child predators, is doing the same? Or may known predators walk the streets? When we know who the predators are, we're not off the hook simply saying abuse is illegal and it's up to us to figure it out. Throw us a bone here. Whatever will we do?

4. Where exactly does WA legislation distinguish between the consensual normative conduct of minors and predatory sexual conduct?

5. Where exactly does WA legislation distinguish between consensual normative conduct of minors on the playground or field of game play and overly aggressive, abusive conduct by peers, coaches and parents that would be considered abusive under this act?

Simple example of "harm" as defined in the act: sport. If a kid is a minor (as defined in your state) playing baseball with same age peers, some over and under the magic age of adulthood, and an adulthood-age pitcher whacks them in the helmet with an purpose pitch knocking them out, is that adult enagaging in child abuse? Will schoolyard baseball umpires become mandated reporters required to call the cops? Will rugby players be arrested for a dangerous tackle that results in an injury?

Wait, there are no manadated reporters, no good Samaritans, no legal protections, no victim protections (except the vague and entirely unsatisfactory implication of "don't abuse them" which we can totally trust police and lawyers to do because they are SO very good at that), no execptions to harm based on inherently risk behavior, no due process, no funding, no banning exportation of your problem to other nations, and nothing at all about protecting children from known predators.

I object. Making child abuse illegal is unarguably good. Leaving exactly what it is and isn't and how laws are enforced entirely up to states' rights will have perverse outcomes that endanger children.

And on the issue of states' rights: what about the nations who are corporate paradises with no government and no prisons? Are you essentially kicking them all out of the WA? As written and interpreted here, you may be. Don't reply that the prisons thing is easily solved by deporting child abusers because that ignores that that the WA is international. Legislation that incentivizes deportation of child predators, which I assert this act may do, could start a WA delegate riot.

I agree that child protection ought to be acknowledged. As written, it scares me and I have heard nothing that will change my vote: no.



Honoured Ambassador you are neglecting the important word " intent " , unless the intent of any action is to harm a child then it is not child abuse under this resolution, regardless of what form it may take.

The honoured Ambassador should remember that this is an international law which is intended to augment prexisting national laws on child neglect and mistreatment. The original and still central purpose of this resolution is to ban the international aspects of child abuse, in the process it had to set a base standard and define some terms, but this should not and could not supplant any stronger or more comprehensive national laws on this topic.

yours e.t.c. ,

The length of WA legislation limitation is a good point. I had not thought about that. I suggest that means it has to be more cleverly written. I submit that this act ignores essentials of child protection (previously stated) chalking them up to states' rights and common sense, when they might have been briefly addressed as issues that must be addressed in national legislation.

The venerable criteria that one can only be convicted if one has knowledge that what one is doing is wrong and the intent to do it is in practical terms a farce because no one can in the end know what anyone else knows. Intent is only inferred at best. Relying on intent must then mean this act excludes all acts of harm to children by those who are deemed to be so mentally ill or confused that intent cannot be established. So you seem to have created an insanity defense loophole.

So what about the caregivers of the mentally ill and confused? Do they then have liability for failing to control their actions, noting the overly broad "or others" phrase in the act? Don't ask me what common sense tells me or complain about the WA length limitations, tell me about the pros and cons. Please sell me on the act.

We're talking about imprisoning people and painting them as child abusers. If they are, that's good. If they aren't, there is absolutely nothing in this act that protects people who are innocent being accused, protects victims from known predators, or protects the people who are brave enough to make reports. That last one, BTW, is a dealbreaker because the act has absolutely no teeth unless you identify who must (not may) report and how they are immune from repriasals for doing so. If reporting is not mandatory for some group of professionals who work with children and people who know or have reasonable suspicion can simply wash their hand of child abuse because their state didn't require manadated reporting, then this is not a child protection act. OK, I said it. In this instance, the act is not strong enough.

Regarding question #1, it was stated of this resolution, "If you were too lazy to pick up broken glass, then you should get charged anyway." Conflating child neglect, which is being a lazy parent, with willfully harming them, is not good law. It's why IRL we distinguish between neglect and abuse.

Saying the act doesn't require untrained police to investigate doesn't require the separate system children deserve. The consequence of child protection is sometimes removing children from their parents against their will. In the case of every child where that is done in error, irreparable harm is done to a family by the state. I am only suggesting that any child protection act ought to make some general statement about the responsibility of the state to reduce the error rate in investigations and the grave decision to removing children from caregivers.

I'll say my last and be done. Until it was forbidden by law IRL, child protection acts were used to persecute and prosecute the poor because, for instance, the food the bought was substandard and their kids didn't develop as fast or do as well in school. Some people even said it was because the poor were lazy. Last time I checked, that doesn't affect my nation. But the suggestion that the WA ought to or should "ignore" other nations because their politics on business doesn't agree with mine might be exactly why they are a minority. Kinda takes the "world" out of WA if you don't at least consider the broad effects of legislation on all delegates.

I really respect your respectful tone. It's a breath of fresh air.

Honoured Ambassador your example of situation 1 is covered by the fact that this resolution bans all possession or dissemination of materials which contain instances of child sexual abuse in all w.a. member states. This applies to situation 2 also where yes the charges of sexual abuse against the child would have to be brought in the childs home nation, but ancilliary charges would also have to be brought against those possessing the recorded materials of this sexual abuse in their nation of residence.

yours e.t.c.,

Then basically, if the age of consent in Country A was 21 and in Country B was 18 and the video was of a 20 year old from Country B, then all those who participated from Country A could be up for prosecution from another country?

I suspect that in this case, you will have a hard time getting countries to comply with this, WA resolution or not.

Then basically, if the age of consent in Country A was 21 and in Country B was 18 and the video was of a 20 year old from Country B, then all those who participated from Country A could be up for prosecution from another country?

I suspect that in this case, you will have a hard time getting countries to comply with this, WA resolution or not.

The people who viewed it from Country A could potentially be prosecuted by their own country, if their own country has laws to that effect.

What this resolution does is state that a person is considered a child under the age of consent for their home nation. That means that if the 20 year old from Country B is over the age of consent, then they are an adult.

It's up to Country A to decide if the video is illegal in their country, since the person in question is not over the age of consent by their standards, as by the definition of this resolution it would not be.

Situation 1:
15 year old girl in Country A is filmed doing lude acts. 15 is no longer considered a child in Country A. Video gets passed to Country B where passing videos of this nature would be illegal. This proposal does not seem to address whether or not whoever first passed the video into Country B can have files charged against them.

Cross-boundary thinking like this is something a lot more nations could usefully do. ::Cerys glares at some of the more die-hard members of the "sovereignty for the sake of sovereignty" club::

The relevant clause of the proposal would seem to be:
c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal

Now as you rightly point out, the proposal doesn't say what happens when porn passes border control. Country B therefore has some latitude as to whether they think the definitions at the point of origin take precidence, i.e. it's legal in the first place, or not. If they take their definitions instead (which they usually would, I imagine) then the key question is where the material is sited. If it's on an internet server in Country A, County B pretty clearly has no claim on the person who put it there. It's illegal to view that material in Country B, but it's not illegal for it to be in Country A.

If, however, someone pushed the porn onto a server in Country B, it's a different matter. The porn becomes sexual abuse as part of the transfer, and the person who pushed it has broken the law in Country B. It's then up to Country B to start extradition proceedings, which Country A can deal with however they usually would.

Situation 2:
15 year old girl in Country A is filmed doing lude acts. 15 is not of legal age and this is against the law. Film gets passed to Country B where 15 is of legal age. Is this girl's rights protected by her home country alone? Or has everyone in Country B who has passed this video around broken the law?
(The word is "lewd", by the way)

The same arguments apply, essentially. Country B is at liberty to regard the film as sexual abuse if they want to, but probably won't. The resolution doesn't force them either way. The film is, however, evidence that the law was broken in Country A.

The whole thing, as you say, is a good demonstration of why anything less than global legislation on information flow is dangerous.

c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal Making viewing of something to an illegal act is really pathetic.
A citizen should always be allowed to view, no matter what.
Measurements should only be taken to stop the publication (actuator-side), not viewing (receptor-side).

However I agree a lot on much of the act, I will vote AGAINST, for the reason above.

Koningsbergen;14055866']Making viewing of something to an illegal act is really pathetic.
A citizen should always be allowed to view, no matter what.
Measurements should only be taken to stop the publication (actuator-side), not viewing (receptor-side).

However I agree a lot on much of the act, I will vote AGAINST, for the reason above.


So a peadophile possessing and viewing hundreds or thousands of images of sexually abused children is perfectly ok in the respected Ambassador's opinion?

yours e.t.c.,

Koningsbergen,

I hear ya. But this is vector politics and rationality is not on the table. When a vector issue in politics like child protection is put out there, anyone who says hey wait a minute has to be a crank or a pedophile. This resolution is one of the most poorly crafted I've ever seen as a result of being overly simplistic and assuming so much comes down to common sense that is not, for the reasons I've outlined above, I cannot allow it to become the law of my NS.

It's already 6:1 for and no matter what you post here, the tone of this thread is this: you're wrong, they're right. Anything you say to the contrary is by definition dismissed as not common sense. Or just too long to put in a WA resolution.

So today one of the more liberal nations in the WA will resign from the WA because this resolution will pass and it may harm children in as many ways it will help it. But not in my nation.

Why doesn't the government of Monkeys in Helmets propose a cogent repeal and then craft a better statute instead?

Or would that be too constructive for the honoured Ambassador's great nation?

yours e.t.c. ,

Now as you rightly point out, the proposal doesn't say what happens when porn passes border control. Country B therefore has some latitude as to whether they think the definitions at the point of origin take precidence, i.e. it's legal in the first place, or not. If they take their definitions instead (which they usually would, I imagine) then the key question is where the material is sited. If it's on an internet server in Country A, County B pretty clearly has no claim on the person who put it there. It's illegal to view that material in Country B, but it's not illegal for it to be in Country A.

If, however, someone pushed the porn onto a server in Country B, it's a different matter. The porn becomes sexual abuse as part of the transfer, and the person who pushed it has broken the law in Country B. It's then up to Country B to start extradition proceedings, which Country A can deal with however they usually would.


The same arguments apply, essentially. Country B is at liberty to regard the film as sexual abuse if they want to, but probably won't. The resolution doesn't force them either way. The film is, however, evidence that the law was broken in Country A.

If the latitude resides within each country even with the passing of this proposal, then why is it included? If what you say is true, it essentially changes nothing.

The whole thing, as you say, is a good demonstration of why anything less than global legislation on information flow is dangerous.

There is very little that I feel calls for "global legislation." Short of nuclear secrets or other information that could reasonably be assumed would lead to widespread violence, information is not of those things.

Ignore this post if it has come up before but I believe there is a serious loophole that I have seen in real life too. If a parent has to grab a child and forcibly yank them off a street to avoid running into a car, is this child abuse? Yes they may have hurt the child but also they have most likely saved their lives and taught them a valuable survival lesson.

This bill fails to state the accepted use of reasonable force to discipline or otherwise help the intended child. This means that a parent can be jailed merely for hurting a child even though it may have been for the greater good. I'm not saying it is that black and white but it should be addressed anyway. A parent should reserve the right to use reasonable force to either help or teach a child (lets face it some children will only understand a little pain).

Another point is that this bill gives the child too much power. A child can threaten his or her parents with legal action for abuse that never occurred. The childs morals and survival ability is severely comprised in the future as they become adults and lose that 'power' over adults as a youth. I believe the intention of the bil is a noble one yet there are many loopholes and it is a little too general. It hasn't been thought through properly and has just been dumped on the WA. If you want to know of a real life law like that and how most of the general public flatly opposed the law change ask any other player who lives in New Zealand.

Ignore this post if it has come up before but I believe there is a serious loophole that I have seen in real life too. If a parent has to grab a child and forcibly yank them off a street to avoid running into a car, is this child abuse? Yes they may have hurt the child but also they have most likely saved their lives and taught them a valuable survival lesson.

This bill fails to state the accepted use of reasonable force to discipline or otherwise help the intended child. This means that a parent can be jailed merely for hurting a child even though it may have been for the greater good. I'm not saying it is that black and white but it should be addressed anyway. A parent should reserve the right to use reasonable force to either help or teach a child (lets face it some children will only understand a little pain).

Another point is that this bill gives the child too much power. A child can threaten his or her parents with legal action for abuse that never occurred. The childs morals and survival ability is severely comprised in the future as they become adults and lose that 'power' over adults as a youth. I believe the intention of the bil is a noble one yet there are many loopholes and it is a little too general. It hasn't been thought through properly and has just been dumped on the WA. If you want to know of a real life law like that and how most of the general public flatly opposed the law change ask any other player who lives in New Zealand.


Yes indeed respected Ambassador, this subject has been covered. But to reprise it- the only acts which this resolution bans are ones where the only tendency is to harm, physically or emotionally it also bans sex with minors.

Therefore any act which causes harm but which was tends to benefit the child or prevent it from coming to a greater harm is still legal.

your last point is rather too confused to be refutted, we suspect that the honoured Ambassador is suggesting that children should not have rights at all because this contravines a parents right to treat their child in whatever fashion they wish, in the manner of a chattel. This could not be suffred to be the case.

We hope this has made the situation post this resolution a little clearer for the honoured Ambassador.

yours e.t.c. ,


O.O.C. By the way this is strictly speaking an r.p. forum and real world references or out of character comments should be stated as so if one wishes to be well mannered. The real world is not the N.S. world.

U.

Yes indeed respected Ambassador, this subject has been covered. But to reprise it- the only acts which this resolution bans are ones where the only intent is to harm, physically or emotionally it also bans sex with minors.
U.

Ambassador Urgench,

Yes, you have replied to this before within this forum, but you have not fully answered it. It may have been your INTENT to include the fact that the resolution bans acts based on the intent of the subject, but I, nor several others, can see it anywhere within these lines:

1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

Please clarify for us. As it stands now, the article seems to be flawed.

Ambassador Urgench,

Yes, you have replied to this before within this forum, but you have not fully answered it. It may have been your INTENT to include the fact that the resolution bans acts based on the intent of the subject, but I, nor several others, can see it anywhere within these lines:

1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

Please clarify for us. As it stands now, the article seems to be flawed.



Indeed this is not the wording we would have liked ( please accept our abject apology for suggesting elsewhere that the word intent actually remained in the text by the way that was a confusion we meant to correct but did not get round to) since it is not as explicit as it could be and would always have led to this confusion, however the principle of any rational system of criminal justice is Intent and this resolution defines what the results of a specific crime would be, any court would have to address the evidence of a crime and more importantly the intent in order to prove a crime had been commited.

Since the part of the resolution the honoured Ambassador quotes is a definition of a term it cannot be used to instruct national courts on how to assess whether the accused has intended to commit a crime.


We agree that the term "tends" is perhaps somewhat dilutory but in any event national courts would read this as " tends to harm" rather than " tends to benefit" .

This distinction being crucial in understanding this resolution's intent.

We should say that our own intent is of no account in this debate.

We should also say that there is no Ambassador Urgench, there is an Ambassador Mongkha Khan of Kashgar who is Ambassador to the w.a. for the Empire of Urgench.

yours e.t.c. ,

If the latitude resides within each country even with the passing of this proposal, then why is it included? If what you say is true, it essentially changes nothing.
On the contrary; the laws now exist, where they did not necessarily do so before. The resolution isn't so much for the benefit of your nation, assuming you already had laws protecting children, as for those who didn't. Don't mistake an explanation of how we have choices over border-crossing porn for an explanation that the whole resolution is optional, because it isn't.

There is very little that I feel calls for "global legislation." Short of nuclear secrets or other information that could reasonably be assumed would lead to widespread violence, information is not of those things.
Then information will always get away from you.

The length of WA legislation limitation is a good point. I had not thought about that. I suggest that means it has to be more cleverly written. I submit that this act ignores essentials of child protection (previously stated) chalking them up to states' rights and common sense, when they might have been briefly addressed as issues that must be addressed in national legislation.

Unfortunately, part of the issue is that this particular proposal had already had a lengthy international review by members of the WA. In the end, the items you bring up were ultimately deemed as acceptable to be left out due to a combination of length requirements, the fact the length means some nations will find ways to abuse it anyway, and the limitations of attempting to cover something like this without infringing too much on member nations.

The venerable criteria that one can only be convicted if one has knowledge that what one is doing is wrong and the intent to do it is in practical terms a farce because no one can in the end know what anyone else knows. Intent is only inferred at best. Relying on intent must then mean this act excludes all acts of harm to children by those who are deemed to be so mentally ill or confused that intent cannot be established. So you seem to have created an insanity defense loophole.

There are some nations who would disagree on the concept that you cannot truly know what others know. Since our short time in the world, we've been exposed to nations that exist in the vast expanses of the void between stars and to a nation that practices psionics, despite the fact our scientists cannot even guess how psionics work within the realm of physics. We are pretty sure the people practicing psionics can, indeed, know your intent behind doing something.

That aside, we find this to be about as good a balance as once is naturally going to get. Either there's going to be some loophole people can try to exploit, or there's going to be a draconian justice system. Neither is balanced on its own. Ultimate, it is up to the courts of each nation to balance this out, as no amount of regulation on our end can prevent a nation from practicing injustice in their court system.

So what about the caregivers of the mentally ill and confused? Do they then have liability for failing to control their actions, noting the overly broad "or others" phrase in the act? Don't ask me what common sense tells me or complain about the WA length limitations, tell me about the pros and cons. Please sell me on the act.

If they are a known danger to children, they should be kept away from children. We do not see a conflict here.

We're talking about imprisoning people and painting them as child abusers. If they are, that's good. If they aren't, there is absolutely nothing in this act that protects people who are innocent being accused, protects victims from known predators, or protects the people who are brave enough to make reports. That last one, BTW, is a dealbreaker because the act has absolutely no teeth unless you identify who must (not may) report and how they are immune from repriasals for doing so. If reporting is not mandatory for some group of professionals who work with children and people who know or have reasonable suspicion can simply wash their hand of child abuse because their state didn't require manadated reporting, then this is not a child protection act. OK, I said it. In this instance, the act is not strong enough.

And if the people who report it are people who are reporting nonfactual information? What's to protect the family that's possibly torn apart and been terrorised by a trip through the court systems just because of an accusation? Who's to protect the families from malicious reporting?

Your questions are tiresome on this regard, simply because we already know the next step. We would have to write another resolution entirely devoted to that subset of the issue in order to fully cover it and all of the problems. And, in the end, it would be a needless law that would effectively leave us exactly where we are now on the issue.

Regarding question #1, it was stated of this resolution, "If you were too lazy to pick up broken glass, then you should get charged anyway." Conflating child neglect, which is being a lazy parent, with willfully harming them, is not good law. It's why IRL we distinguish between neglect and abuse.

OOC: IRL, neglect is a form of abuse, and recognized as such under law.

Back to IC now.

Saying the act doesn't require untrained police to investigate doesn't require the separate system children deserve. The consequence of child protection is sometimes removing children from their parents against their will. In the case of every child where that is done in error, irreparable harm is done to a family by the state. I am only suggesting that any child protection act ought to make some general statement about the responsibility of the state to reduce the error rate in investigations and the grave decision to removing children from caregivers.

Which would be a vague statement with no power, no enforceability, and the same amount of realistic effect as the lack of it has.

I'll say my last and be done. Until it was forbidden by law IRL, child protection acts were used to persecute and prosecute the poor because, for instance, the food the bought was substandard and their kids didn't develop as fast or do as well in school. Some people even said it was because the poor were lazy. Last time I checked, that doesn't affect my nation. But the suggestion that the WA ought to or should "ignore" other nations because their politics on business doesn't agree with mine might be exactly why they are a minority. Kinda takes the "world" out of WA if you don't at least consider the broad effects of legislation on all delegates.

I really respect your respectful tone. It's a breath of fresh air.

You will have to excuse me, but you are being part of the problem you address here. Let me explain why before you get huffy.

If you check, this resolution was debated at length, editted, and discussed quite a bit before it was ever submitted. Often, the reason why the minority is ignored is simply because of the fact they are typically only heard from when it comes to a resolution they don't like, and then they never bother to stick around afterwards to have any real effect. Since there's no real input from most of them, there's no way to realistically bother with trying to protect their viewpoint.

Our nation is a minority. Our nation is one that practices, and openly supports, slavery. A lot of nations around the WA do not like it simply because of the fact the people are property and do not have full freedom, no matter how much work we have put into trying our best to make sure our slavery system is one that actually treats slaves as people. We have learned to accept that, but we are still sticking around and still putting in our input on issues. And there is even a draft proposal that is very close to being submitted by us, which has been discussed and editted just as this one was.

If you want to truly have an effect, then stick around the WA. Work on a repeal with your concerns, then work on a resolution that replaces this one and covers everything you were concerned about. Work with us and I guarantee that you will find the minority voice you have brought up at least considered. And once it's considered, you will likely find things changing.

I do not guarantee it will be easy. I know it will not always be easy for the nation I represent. I know that, some day, slavery will come under the scrutiny of the WA and be outlawed. That doesn't mean I can't try to influence it in such a way that the nation I represent is not affected too aversely while still allowing the systems of injustice that have become considered the representative of slavery to be dealt the blow they so richly deserve.

In that, we would disagree. While a fetus meets the genetic test for the species of which they are a future member of, we have found that both fetuses and embryos fail tests of sapiency. As such, we cannot authorise their recognition as people and, due to potential detrimental effects they can have, cannot support any resolution which calls for outlawing their destruction as well as being unwilling to ever support anything that bans contraceptives, in part due to the fact we cannot say we will not have to utilize population growth control measures at some later date or in any future colonies we may establish.

I must object to one of your premises. You say that embryos pass genetic tests "for the species of which they are a future member." They do pass such a test, and therefore are not "future members" but are actually part of the human race. They are people.

If an agreement cannot be reached, I reccomend that, as a compromise, nations be allowed to ban the aforementioned heinous crimes of abotion and contraception at their discretion.

I must object to one of your premises. You say that embryos pass genetic tests "for the species of which they are a future member." They do pass such a test, and therefore are not "future members" but are actually part of the human race. They are people.

If an agreement cannot be reached, I reccomend that, as a compromise, nations be allowed to ban the aforementioned heinous crimes of abotion and contraception at their discretion.

Because this resolution does not deal with determining the point where an embryo or fetus is considered a child, that is already up to each individual nation to decide whether or not they will allow abortion and contraception.

I intentionally chose to leave that can of worms unopened because of the debate that would spark from it.

Rutianas' position on it is this: Contraception is perfectly legal and the use of such is condoned, particularly from the age of consent (seventeen) through the end of military service (twenty-one). Abortion is legal, but only in cases of rape, incest, danger to mother and child, and severe genetic problems with the fetus. It is not an acceptable form of contraception.

I'm sure there are nations who would disagree with our views. There are probably some who would agree with it as well. But it is not something that should be tackled where this resolution is concerned.

This resolution only deals with the child as defined by a nation, taking the definitions of majority and consent into account. So if a nation wanted to say that a child is defined from conception to their age of consent, then that's what it is for that nation.

I hope that explains a little more for you. There's really no debate on the subject since it's not included in the resolution. If you want to write a proposal on it, feel free to do so. Best to post it as a draft and let others see it before submission.

I must object to one of your premises. You say that embryos pass genetic tests "for the species of which they are a future member." They do pass such a test, and therefore are not "future members" but are actually part of the human race. They are people.

W should note that fingers also pass the genetic test. So do eyeballs, toes, blood, and a number of other items. Given the premise you have presented, each one must be considered a person.

If an agreement cannot be reached, I reccomend that, as a compromise, nations be allowed to ban the aforementioned heinous crimes of abotion and contraception at their discretion.

This is how it is at current.

As Europeia's delegate, I have been instructed to vote AGAINST this resolution. Most of the region's issues with this resolution have been brought up here already, but I wish to share one that (to my knowledge) has not:

"2. F) Should be amended to allow undercover law enforcement to participate in only the circulation of paedophile media. Even if they are trying to catch a criminal I highly doubt they'd be allowed to sexually abuse or physically harm a kid. 2. F) Doesn't make this exception so voted against."

That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of another nation within Europeia.

"2. F) Should be amended to allow undercover law enforcement to participate in only the circulation of paedophile media. Even if they are trying to catch a criminal I highly doubt they'd be allowed to sexually abuse or physically harm a kid. 2. F) Doesn't make this exception so voted against."

That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of another nation within Europeia.

I understand the situation you're in. I'd like to tackle this one that was brought up and hopefully you can share this with your region.

f) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

The word 'materials' is key to this. It allows the use of media and other materials to apprehend criminals. It does not allow for the sexual abuse of a child to apprehend criminals. Definitely doesn't allow for the physical abuse as it's only dealing with the sexual abuse aspect. It only deals with the materials of the case. That is the only exemption that law enforcement authorities and court officials are given. Where materials are relevant to the case.

I do hope that clears things up for your region.

It has been stated before, but cannot be allowed to be ignored.

The ambassador from the Armed Republic of Caliberton vehemently disagrees with the passing of this resolution.

Point 1: The word "harm" has far too many implied meanings.
Point 2: The age of majority issue allows far too much "flex room" for those in power to exercise abuse of this law.
Point 3: The abuse of children is a local issue and should be handled at the local level.

The allowance of this law to pass guarantees an age of disrespectful, disobedient, and unruly children who will grow up to be similar adults. This in no way implies that laws against child abuse shouldn't be in place, only that this law, with its current verbage, is far too vague to be of use.

It has been stated before, but cannot be allowed to be ignored.

The ambassador from the Armed Republic of Caliberton vehemently disagrees with the passing of this resolution.

Point 1: The word "harm" has far too many implied meanings.
Point 2: The age of majority issue allows far too much "flex room" for those in power to exercise abuse of this law.
Point 3: The abuse of children is a local issue and should be handled at the local level.

The allowance of this law to pass guarantees an age of disrespectful, disobedient, and unruly children who will grow up to be similar adults. This in no way implies that laws against child abuse shouldn't be in place, only that this law, with its current verbage, is far too vague to be of use.



This is simply not true respected Ambassador. The word "harm" could really not be clearer, harm is harm, and if this resolution were to decide to use another term or to enumerate the forms of harm it specifically bans it would be accused of leaving out certain other forms of harm or of being even more vague. In any event "harm" is qualified by the word "physical".

Your second point respected Ambassador implies that you may not have properly understood the meaning of this resolution.

Your third point is valid in so far as the detailed legislative framework of child protection law is indeed the province of national government. However this resolution specifically deals with the international forms which child abuse may take such as child pornography, which is very much the domain of an international body such as this one. In the process it must perforce define certain terms and outline certain legal rights and responsibilities or be reduced to a one sentence slogan.

yours e.t.c. ,

yes lets fight for the children. We would not have this problem if the people gave more power to us, and allowed us to deploy our own more harsh privet police on to our streets. These problems only arise because weak leaders give the people too much power. people are naturally selfish and ambitious and submit to an authoritarian government to prevent disorder. yeah shit happens, but remember "Life is Nasty, Brutish,and Short." Thomas Hobbes.

This is simply not true respected Ambassador. The word "harm" could really not be clearer, harm is harm


Is it 'psychologically harming a child' to teach about evolution?
Is it 'psychologically harming a child' to NOT teach about evolution?
Does 'any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm' mean that you are required by law to prevent a toddler from falling down while learning to walk? From falling off a bicycle? From taking up smoking because his peer group talked him into it?

Words are variable. Just because you can't imagine the other possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a legitimate argument.

Is it 'psychologically harming a child' to teach about evolution?
Is it 'psychologically harming a child' to NOT teach about evolution?
Does 'any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm' mean that you are required by law to prevent a toddler from falling down while learning to walk? From falling off a bicycle? From taking up smoking because his peer group talked him into it?

Words are variable. Just because you can't imagine the other possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a legitimate argument.




O.O.C. thanks for the implied insult, is the employment of rhetorical tricks a rules violation now? And for the record I can conceive of other interpretations of the word "harm", it just seemed unecessary to make Mongkha make that absolutely clear.

In any case i never denied the legitimacy of the argument, i just had Mongkha elide over it. But obviously i accept the reprimand and will adapt my future posts accordingly.

U.

My Region has decided to vote against this resolution by popular vote ( as always ) So I must cast my vote against it, and deliver the main complaint of those who opposed it in my region : "This like other resolutions I have seen of late, truly are matters of the Nation state itself. Not the WA"

Thank you.
Wencee~

Is it 'psychologically harming a child' to teach about evolution?
Is it 'psychologically harming a child' to NOT teach about evolution?
Does 'any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm' mean that you are required by law to prevent a toddler from falling down while learning to walk? From falling off a bicycle? From taking up smoking because his peer group talked him into it?

Words are variable. Just because you can't imagine the other possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a legitimate argument.

I agree with you. But in the case that any other nation tries to use the points you have raised in order to block this resolution, I would like to add that all those above, I accept, may be charaterised as pyschological harm.

But remember, the criminal case will be tried in a judicial court. In a judicial court, the judges are free to make decisions regarding the intent of the legislation. With respect, I would like to say that I am sure that the judges in my nation are logical and rational enough to understand that the legislation implies a pyschological abuse in the more popular understanding, and thus rule in the case accordingly.

But if the judges are unable to do so in another nation, I would like to say that the resoning and free rational of judges must be flawed, in that country, if they cannot reason and judge on the grey areas and intent of the appropriate law in front of the Court.

Therefore, basically, in most if not all cases, the intepretation of pyschological abuse as mentioned in the quote above is unlikely to happen in an ordinary and independent judicial court. Thus, the problem is unlikely to result in any succesful criminal action in line with the intepretations of pyschological abuse already mentioned above.

Thank you.

My Region has decided to vote against this resolution by popular vote ( as always ) So I must cast my vote against it, and deliver the main complaint of those who opposed it in my region : "This like other resolutions I have seen of late, truly are matters of the Nation state itself. Not the WA"

Thank you.
Wencee~

In response to your post,

I must say I am rather dissapointed at your stand. Is the world supposed to stand by and watch as children are raped and abused in countries where there are no legal protections for children ? Are we supposed to let human injustices tyat are as blatant and disgusting as that to take place in our own backdoor ? The line between human and worse must be drawn always. To accept and let other nations continue to practice such disgusting practices is undeniably wrong. To say that a nation must be free from international intervention in such cases, is an argument used more often by those who themselves seek to continue such abhorrent practices or discriminate against basic rights of fellow humans. To deny appropriate levels of protection and rights to every individual, is to take a step back to the times when we, human were as bad as apes, if one is to believe in the evolution theory. Even if one believes in the creationist theory, to not protect our fellow humans from such practices is surely worse tha what we humans have been put on this earth for. For surely, if one believes in a God, surely the God will not want children to be raped and abused on a daily basis in stubborn and corrupt and morally degraded nations.

Is it 'psychologically harming a child' to teach about evolution?
Is it 'psychologically harming a child' to NOT teach about evolution?
Does 'any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm' mean that you are required by law to prevent a toddler from falling down while learning to walk? From falling off a bicycle? From taking up smoking because his peer group talked him into it?

Words are variable. Just because you can't imagine the other possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a legitimate argument.


Is it psychologically harming a child for them to be raised Frisbeeterian?
Is it psychologically harming a child to not teach them about pain by setting them on fire daily?
Does 'any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm' mean you have to remove them from Frisbeeteria because simply being a Frisbeeterian might be considered physical harm?

While the definitions of words can go many ways, one cannot stop to waste their time accounting for every irrational or silly argument that can be used in every word one uses within a resolution. While I do agree with you on the issue of some words, I must also state the belief that the last set of examples chosen are definitely on the silly side and, thus, mostly not worthy of consideration.

O.O.C. thanks for the implied insult, is the employment of rhetorical tricks a rules violation now? And for the record I can conceive of other interpretations of the word "harm", it just seemed unecessary to make Mongkha make that absolutely clear.

In any case i never denied the legitimacy of the argument, i just had Mongkha elide over it. But obviously i accept the reprimand and will adapt my future posts accordingly.

U.

I don't think there was an implied insult I think that he was simply telling you the main reason over 1,500 of us have voted against the plot to force the nations of the WA to knuckle under the demands of several nations who should get their noses out the lives of other nations, if we feel that it should be dealt with we shall deal with it. :hail:

I don't think there was an implied insult I think that he was simply telling you the main reason over 1,500 of us have voted against the plot to force the nations of the WA to knuckle under the demands of several nations who should get their noses out the lives of other nations, if we feel that it should be dealt with we shall deal with it. :hail:


What gives the respected Ambassador the idea that we needed them to interpret the honoured and revered Ambassador for Frisbeeteria's words for us?

We understood exactly what was being said and we understand the argument which the honoured Ambassador for Michael Toth has made also. However understanding does not always mean agreement, this being the case we remain unable to agree with the honoured Ambassador for Michael Toth's objection to this statute.

However we cannot understand how the honoured Ambassador can make so bold as to speak so categorically for all those nation's who have voted against this statute, are they in communication with all of these nations?

yours e.t.c. ,

No but see over grown fool's like your self and the minions that you have gathered need to be purged from the tree of power. Yes I am a ambassador to Michael Toth but what am not here to sit by and let the nations run by radicals tell my nation what to do. As for interpreting the ambassador I was not, I was responding to you sir, a person who bores me with your silly notions of nations will stand by and let those who have been here longer push us around. No thank you sir, no thank you indeed.

No but see over grown fool's like your self and the minions that you have gathered need to be purged from the tree of power. Yes I am a ambassador to Michael Toth but what am not here to sit by and let the nations run by radicals tell my nation what to do. As for interpreting the ambassador I was not, I was responding to you sir, a person who bores me with your silly notions of nations will stand by and let those who have been here longer push us around. No thank you sir, no thank you indeed.



What silly rudeness and empty braggadoccio respected Ambassador. There is absolutely no need for the esteemed Ambassador to loose their composure.

Which nations is the respected Ambassador refering to which are run by Radicals? Certainly Urgench is not one of them. And the respected Ambassador's ravings about a "tree of power" and the Empire of Urgench having "minions" is laughable and bizarre.

No one is trying to push the honoured Ambassador's nation around, indeed it is only the protection of children that we are concerned with as is the revered and respected delegacy of Rutianas which authored this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

Meddling brats! Why should we protect them? Let them go back to shining shoes!

Meddling brats! Why should we protect them? Let them go back to shining shoes!
Krankor you are right. Why should we be bothered with the brat 's problems when they do no work and force us to pay for their education and welfare.